order
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 231/2010
Friday, the 17th day of June , 2011.
Petitioner : Jose V. Mathew,
Vellamthadathil
Chamampathal P.O
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : The Director,
Cresent College of Nursing
Mottambram P.O
Madai, Kannur Dist.
(By Adv. Kurian Chembola)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 23..9..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner’s daughter Miss. Silpa Celine Jose, booked a management seat for B Sc Nursing course in the opposite party Nursing College by giving an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as advance amount for management seat. Petitioner on 10..6..2009 brought the application form by remitting an amount of Rs. 250/- as money order. On 20..6..2009 petitioner taken a demand draft of Rs. 15,000/- from the SBT Chamampathal branch. Petitioner’s daughter had applied for nursing in SME College and MGM College Pathanamthitta. According to the petitioner other institutions had not demanded advance amount for management seat. On 18..7..2009 petitioner admitted her daughter in the SME College. On 18..7..2009 itself petitioner demanded for refund of the advance amount of Rs. 15,000/-. But at the opposite party has not refunded the amount. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for refund of Rs. 15,000/- with 10% interest along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and costs of the proceedings.
-2-
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party fora has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Petitioner is not a consumer. Petitioner had given a telephone call with the opposite party for admission of his daughter to first year B Sc Nursing course under Management quota, during the year 2009-2010. In response to telephone enquiry the fees structure and other conditions were briefed to the petitioner over phone. Accordingly petitioner’s daughter submitted application together with copies of certificate and DD for Rs. 15,000/-, drawn at Kottayam. The securing of a
seat to petitioner’s daughter was intimated to the opposite party for the year 2009-2010 only after 30..10..2009. After that petitioner has not request for refund of the advance amount. Since the management was lost one management seat along with fees at the rate of Rs. 88,000/- per year advance amount can not be refunded. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
iii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the deposition of PW1. Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
With regard to maintainability of the petition opposite party filed IA. 02/11. Fora as per vide separate order in IA 2/11 Dtd: 25..2..2011 found that petition is maintainable before the fora. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.
-3-
Point No. 2
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the amount which is given to the opposite party, as advance amount for management quota for, B Sc Nursing course fees is whether refundable or not. According to the opposite party due to act of petitioner the opposite party lost one management seat and 4 years fees at the rate of Rs. 88,000/- per year so, the advance amount is not refundable. We are of the view that stand taken by the opposite party is not sustainable. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that one seat of the opposite party in the first year B Sc Nursing for the year 2009-2010 is kept vacant due to the interference of the petitioner. In our view the adamant stand taken by the opposite party in not returning the advance amount for a student, who was not admitted in the opposite party college, is not justifiable. Act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 2 is found accordingly.
Point No. 3
In view of the finding in point No. 1 and 2 petition is allowed. In the result opposite party is ordered to refund Rs. 15,000/- with 9% interest from 30..10..2009 till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th . day of June, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
-4-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner:
Ext. A1: Copy of AD Card.
Ext. A1(a) Copy of postal receipt
Ext. A2: Copy of the DD for Rs. 15,000/-.
Ext. A3: Copy of postal receipt
Ext. A3(a) Copy of AD card
Ext. A4: Copy of the admission cancel memo card issued by the SME college,
Kottayam.
Ext. A5: Copy of the receipt
Ext. A6: Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite party Dtd: 29..10..2009
Ext. A6 (a) Copy of the acknowledgement card
Ext. A7: Report issued by the Additional Secretary to the petitioner.
Ext. A8: Copy of bonafide certificate issued by MGM MMC College.
Ext. A9: Copy of paper cutting
Documents for the opposite party
Nil
PW1: Jose V. Mathew.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
