Complaint filed on: 22-03-2010<br /> Disposed on: 31-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.620/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 31st AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> G.M.Reddy Kanamatha Reddy,<br /> MBA-Bharathiar, <br /> Acharya Leadership and <br /> Research Institute,<br /> # 3, Lingadheernahalli, <br /> Off Magadhi Road, <br /> Bangalore – 91 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> Director, S.P.Reddy<br /> Reg.Director, Balasubramaniam<br /> Rafiq, <br /> Bangalore School of Business, <br /> 15, 18th Main, JP Nagar, <br /> 7th Phase, (Opp. RBI layout),<br /> Bangalore - 78<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party are, that he got enrolled for MBA (Industrial integrated) full time programme for the year 2009-10 run by the OP. While he was studying in engineering final semester in the month of April 2009, the OP called on him and told him that they are conducting group discussion and personal interview. He attended the group discussion and personal interview at that the time professor Balasubramaniam of OP told him that OP’s college is affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University, Tamil Nadu and shown an affiliation letter to him. After a week thereafter he was told to had been selected and to pay Rs.15,000/- as registration fee then on admission letter dated 17-4-2009, he sent DD for Rs.15,000/- to the OP. After joining the college on 17-8-2009 he was made to believe that he was studying in Madurai Kamaraj University. He was surprised, when he was asked to fill up an application on 18-9-2009 of Estern Institute for integrated learning of management and that he told him it is a full time programme. But he came to know that it was distance learning programme. Then 150 students came out of OP’s college, OP promised to refund their money but thereafter they have refused to refund the money and telling that they got affiliation to Manonmanian Sundaranar University in Tamil Nadu. He has stated to have paid Rs.15,000/- as registration fee and Rs.1,50,000/- as first semester fee and Rs.24,000/- as hostel fee and has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund his money and also award compensation. <br /> <br /> 2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version, conducting its curriculum in association with reputed universities it had associated with Madurai Kamaraj University since the year 2006 for MBA programme and had enrolled its earlier batches, therefore in the website they had so mentioned. When they were offering program of Madurai Kamaraj University, the said university closed its program across the country and so they tied up with Manonmanian Sundaranar University and EIILM University which have full authority to bestow full time MBA degrees which are also approved by UGC. This was brought to the notice of the students through the notice board. The complainant who was selected for the course was also informed about this, who after satisfying, joined the institution and deposited fee. That they had obtained authorization EIILM University in April 2009 and obtained recognition from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on 26-6-2009. The OP has further contended that the complainant after attending the classes for several weeks shifted to Acharya leadership and research institute MBA programme. Therefore he voluntarily opted out of the classes for his own reasons and is demanding refund of money. Therefore denying the liability of refunding to such a complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the 2nd Op on behalf of the others also have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of few letters sent by the OP, copies of letters of EIILM, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and Madurai Kamaraj University addressed to the OP. OP has also produced a copy of public notice issued by university grant commission and a copy of paper cutting. OP has produced a copy of registration form and a copy of rules and regulations. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he was justified in withdrawing his studies from the OP institution and that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding his fee?<br /> <br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: The complainant is justified <br /> in withdrawing from his studies from the OP institution and has proved deficiency in the service of the OP in with holding entire fee paid. <br /> <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: It is the complainant’s case that he got admitted OP schools for doing his MBA course in the year 2009-10 believing that OP was affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. He has further stated that he has paid fee towards registration, first semester and hostel fee to pursue his first semester on that belief but he was surprised as he later came to know that OP was affiliated to EIILM university which he never opted and it is his further contention that latter on he was told by OP that his college is affiliated to Manonmanian Sundaranar University of Tamil Nadu. Therefore he did not wish to pursue his studies in the OP institution, which is not affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. <br /> <br /> 7. OP in his version and also in the affidavit version admitted, since year 2006 their institution was associated with Madurai Kamaraj University for its MBA programme but that Madurai Kamaraj University closed its programme across the country and therefore admitted that OP is tied up with Manonmanian Sundaranar University and EIILM University. On careful analyses of this fact, it is clear that, when the complainant intended to join the OP school, he was told it had been affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj university. But later on its earlier affiliation did not continue but affiliation was with some other university. The OP is not denying receipt of fee from the complainant. The complainant has produced a letter of registrar of EIILM university addressed to the OP stating that university has issued authorization to the OP school for the calendar year 2009-10. That means the OP school came to be recognized by this EIILM university. In this letter it is shown that it is a distance learning university and not regular course university. The complainant has also produced a copy of the letter of the registrar of Manonmanian Sundaranar University dated 26-6-2009 in which that university stated to have issued recognition for the OP school for the academic year 2009-10for MBA course. Through these letters of recognition the complainant has proved that the OP being not able to get affiliation or recognition from a particular university is changing the university in obtaining recognition of universities of different states which has naturally created uncertainty in the mind of the students and about their carrier. Because it is for the students to choose the colleges and universities depending upon their reputation and standard for their better prospects. When the confidence of the complainant was shaken because of this uncertainty, it is not wise to any body to compel them to pursue their studies in any college against their choice. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has also produced a public notice issued by the secretary of UGC to the notice of general public and to the notice of students in particular informing them that certain universities have affiliated colleges beyond their territorial jurisdiction of their states in violation UGC (Establishment of and maintenance of standards in private university) regulation -2003 and even listed this EIILM university as one of such universities giving recognition or affiliation to schools or colleges out side their state and that UGC has not approved any such centre. Therefore recognition obtained by the OP from EIILM University can not be legal one. Then even recognition of Manonmanian Sundaranar University which has issued recognition to the OP institution which is situated out side Tamil Nadu state cannot also be legal. In view of the circular of UGC, the complainant if had opted to quit the school of the OP to mould his carrier in the better way it cannot be construed as improper. Under these circumstance if the OP had been put to be any financial loss that may have to be compensated and in that regard we shall consider deficiency of the OP in not refunding the complainant’s fee. <br /> <br /> 9. OP has contended that the complainant had attended the classes for several weeks, but he has not come forward with material particulars as how many classes exactly the complainant has attended, what are the facilities of the OP that the complainant has availed and financial loss that he has suffered, so that this forum could mould the relief by also taking into consideration the loss to which the OP was put. The complainant has also produced a copy of paper cutting which was published in Bangalore mirror a part of Time of India daily news paper in which it is seen that the OP is reported to have indulged in unfair trade practice in luring students for admission to MBA course without adequate infrastructure charging the students exorbitantly, what ever may be the publication that has appeared in the news paper. The complainant has not denied in having had attended certain classes and availed some service of the OP for some weeks. The OP since has not substantiated the extent of loss or quantum of expenditure he has incurred some reasonable amount may have to be deducted for the service that the complainant availed before ordering refund. <br /> <br /> 10. The learned counsel appearing for the OP by relying upon a decision of Chandigarh State Commission reported in IV (2003) CPJ 500 and a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2008) CPJ 197 submitted that fee once paid cannot be refunded. In the first decision, the State commission has held fee once deposited by students after satisfying herself cannot ask for refund. In the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission refund was sought by the complainant after attending classes for three months and that seat vacated by that complainant fell vacant through out and therefore National Commission held fee can not be refunded. That the facts of this cases are not similar to the facts of these two decisions. The complainant in this case had left the OP classes at an early stage because of uncertainy carrier in the school of the OP. Likewise several students also stated had left the school. Under these circumstances the OP can not refuse to refund entire fee. The complainant in the complaint shown have paid registration fee of Rs.15,000/-, first semester fee of Rs.1,50,000/- and hostel fee of Rs.24,000/- but in the relief column he has stated that he had paid Rs.1,30,000/- to OP college and further stated he had not stayed in the hostel lost two months and the college has to pay Rs.10,000/- to him. The complainant therefore has not come with specific says in the prayer column in accordance with the allegations of the complaint. Therefore the OP after deducting a part of the amount towards expenditure it had incurred during the stay of the complainant, is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/-, which in our view which would meet the ends of the justice. With the result, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Failing which, he shall pay interest at 8% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> OP shall also pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br />