BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29th FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.193/2014
(Admitted on 13.06.2014)
Nithil P.V.
S/o Sureshan
Aged 19 years,
Residing at “Puthalath House”
Alavil-Post, Aaramkottam,
Kannur District. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Shrikanta Shetty K.)
VERSUS
Dr. M.V. Shetty Memorial Trust(Regd),
A.B. Shetty Circle, Mangalore,
D.K. District-575 001,
Represented by it’s Administrative officer. …. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for Opposite Parties: Sri Chandrashekhar Holla K.)
***********
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, in the year 2013 complainant contacted Opposite Party for his admission to 1st years B.E. Mechanical Engineer course @ Dr. M.V. Shetty institution of Technology Moodubidri for the academic year 2013-14 and paid registration fee on 12.06.2013. It is stated that the complainant in all i.e. tuition fee + hostel facility in total paid Rs. 1,45,000/-. Thereafter the complainant got free B.F.Tech Seat in National institute of fashion Technology on merits i.e. Government seat. This fact informed to the Opposite Party and sought for refund of tuition fee. It is stated that, the Opposite Party in spite of request not refunded the amount paid by them. Complainant contended that the service rendered by Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of the various fees collected i.e., Rs.1,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 13.08.2013 onwards till payment and also pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses.
II. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. The Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed their version stated that at the time of admission to the said course, the Opposite Party informed the complainant about the tuition fee, room rent, mess charge etc., As per the rules prevailing in Opposite Party institution the fee are required to be paid during admission. While admitting complainant the complainant was issued with prospectus and he has voluntarily signed a declaration dated 22.07.2013. The said declaration also counter signed by his father. After completing admission process the complainant has attended the classes few days later approached Opposite Party and informed that he intends to discontinue the course as he has got admission in National Institution of Fashion Technology for B.F Tech course. The Opposite Party returned the original certificates and given undertaking letter that they will not claim the fee which are already paid.
It is stated that the complainant attended the course, the seat allotted to the complainant could not be filled and it has remained vacant and there is no deficiency on part of the Opposite Party and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
III. In support of the complaint, Sri. Nithil P.V. (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served by the Opposite Parties. Ex C1 to C8 were marked on behalf of the Complainant. One Sri. Chandrashekhara Holla K. (RW1), administrative officer of the Opposite Party Memorial Trust, filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 is marked on behalf of the Opposite Party.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
IV. Point No.(i) to (iii):
The facts which are in dispute is that the complainant admitted to the opposite party institution to 1st year B.E Mechanical engineer for the academic year 2013-14 and paid in total Rs. 1,45,000/-. Now the complainant came up with this complaint stating that he got free seat in National Institute of Fashion technology for B.F Tech course and discontinued the course in opposite party institution and sought for refund of money paid by complainant.
Opposite party on the contrary contended that as per the rules prevailing in Opposite Party institution the fee are required to be paid during admission. While admitting the complainant the complainant was issued with prospectus and he has voluntarily signed a declaration dated 22.07.2013. The said declaration also counter signed by his father. After completing admission process the complainant has attended the classes few days, later approached opposite Party and informed that he intends to discontinue the course as he has got admission in National Institution of Fashion Technology for B.F Tech course. The seat allotted to the complainant is vacant and not filled. The opposite party returned the original certificates but denied to refund the fees.
On perusal of the material evidence placed before us reveals that the complainant discontinued the institution because he got free seat in National Institution of Fashion Technology for B.F Tech course. It is seen on record that there is no deficiency whatsoever on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant and his parents well aware that the opposite party institution is not government institution. On the other hand it is private institution running without aid from the government. Students seeking admission to professional private colleges should think of the implications before seeking admission. Further every institutions issued with prospectus to the students before seeking admission. The students as well as the parents fair enough to understand the consequences. The admissions forms are signed by the students as well as their parents/guardians. Even in the present case, the complainant is matured enough to understand the full implications and he has signed the declaration more so his father also signed. Therefore the complainant and his father are bound by the information supplied at the time of admission. Further it is admitted fact that complainant attended few classes. As we know, that the cancellation of admission is received before or after the start of the academic session obviously seat cannot be filled by the institute. Opposite party filed affidavit that they could not fill the seat, it appears to be genuine because complainant left the institution, after the start of academic session. It is also seen on record that, complainant received the original certificates and at the time of taking original certificates the complainant and his father have signed an undertaking statement that they will not claim the fees which are already paid to the opposite party institution as per Ex R-1. It is thus evident that complaint is not entitled fees already paid. Even otherwise, as per the terms and conditions in the prospectus that tuition fee and other fees deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he is entitled for refund the fees deposited at the time of admission.
. The counsel for the Op institution relied on Vol. CXXXIV-(2003-2) The Punjab Law Reporter-Navdeep Singh Vs I.I.T.T College of Engineering, Village Polewal District Nawanshahar and Ors in which it was observed in paragraph 6 as under:-
“6. The petitioner has neither controverted the ascertain contained in the written statement of respondent No. 1 that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the foot of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner”.
He has also placed reliance on VOLCVII-(1994-2) The Punjab Law Reporter –Rai Singh Vs. The MaharashiDayanand University & Ors. In which it was observed in paragraph 10 as under:-
“10 Students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case. The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission”.
(2015) CPJ 112 (NC)
ALOK JAIN Vs. GURU GOBIND SINGH & ANR.
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g), 15-Education-Non-refund of counselling fee-Appellant got admission in Opposite Party No. 1 University and Opposite Party No. 2 College and deposited counselling fee along with security fee-Meantime, appellant got admission elsewhere-Respondent returned only security amount and refused to refund counselling amount-Complaint before District Forum filed-Dismissed-Hence present appeal Appellant attended classes for one month and then applied for refund of fee, because he had obtained admission elsewhere-since, he applied after cut-off date as given in admission brochure, appellant was according to terms and conditions, disentitled to reimbursement of fee”.
III(2015) CPJ 112 (NC)
FIIT JEE LTD Vs. S. BALAVIGNESH
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 21(b)-Education-Admission-Coaching discontinued due to illness-Refund of fee denied-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission partly allowed appeal-hence revision-As per declaration contained in enrollment form, student taking admission is not entitled to refund of any part of fee paid by him irrespective of ground on which he withdraws admission-Where seat vacated on account of withdrawal by student during currency of course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against vacant seat, refusal of coaching institute to refund fee cannot be said to be unfair trade practice”.
However these judgments are applicable to the case on hand. The placing reliance on these citations and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded herein above.
V. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of February 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Nithil P.V. – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Doc. C1 – 12.06.2013: Receipt issued by O.P for Rs. 10,000/-
Doc. C2 – 22.07.2013: Receipt No. 31735 issued by O.P. for Rs. 550/-
Doc. C3 – 22.07.2013: Receipt No. 15702 issued by O.P.
for Rs. 22,100/-
Doc. C4 – 22.07.2013: Receipt 31202 issued by O.P.
for Rs. 23,400/-
Doc. C5 – 22.07.2013: Receipt No. 2965 issued by O.P. for Rs. 89,500/-
Doc. C6 – Notorised I.D card of complainant issued by NIFT.
Doc. C7- 10.10.2013: Copy of Regd. Notice sent by complainant.
Doc. C8- 19.10.2013: Reply sent by opposite party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW-1 : Jayaram hedge Opposite party
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party
Ex R1 – : Copy of the Attendance Register for the
month of July and August 2013.
Dated:29.02.2016 PRESIDENT
