1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/6/2010 passed by the District Consumer forum Amravati partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing no. 173 of 2001 thereby directing opponent/appellant herein to pay amount of Rs. 38525/- with 12 percent interest thereon to be calculated from 1.2.2001 and compensation of Rs. 10000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 1000/- more towards cost of proceedings.
2. Appellant to be referred as opponent and respondent to be referred as complainant for the sake of brevity.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-
3. The complaint Gajanan Vitthalrao Kumbhalkar had taken admission in the first year of B.H.M.S. course conducted by the opponent Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Medical Science College. The admission/Selection for the said course is conducted by the state of Maharashtra, Department of Health Sciences. The complainant was selected for admission to Health Science courses 2000/01 in Round I of the selection process for B.H.M.S. course in 30 % State OBC quota and type of admission being Payment seat. The complainant was inform regarding the same and he took the admission by paying of Rs. 39025/- . The State of Maharashtra through Directoriate of Medical Education and Research conducted the second round of selection. The complainant was selected in this round also and by letter dated 10/11/2000 issued by the Directoriate of Medical Education and Research the complainant was inform about his selection for admission in Shri Takhatmal Shri Vallabh Homeopathic Mahavidyalaya Rajapeth Amravati in a free seat. The complainant therefore availed of the admission in free seat and sought for refund of the tuition fee of Rs. 38525/- after deducting Rs. 500/- as per Rule No. 10.52 of Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Test and Rules for Admission. The complainant by letter dated 1/2/2001 and 7/3/2001 requested the opponent to refund the fee. Since the opponent did not refund the fee the complainant issued a legal notice on 26/7/2001 calling upon the opponent to refund the tuition fee. Since, the opponent failed to refund the tuition fee as per the rules. The complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice filed consumer complaint and sought for refund of the tuition fee of Rs. 38525/-deposited by the complainant with 18% interest thereon, and compensation for mental and physical harrassment and Rs. 1000/- more towards cost of proceedings.
4. The opponent resisted the complaint by filing its written version and submitted that they are imparting education which is not a service and a student/complainant is not a consumer. Therefore they have not rendered any deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
5. The complainant had taken admission in first year of B.H.M.S. course by filling in the necessary admission form on 10/08/2000 and also depositing the tuition fee of Rs. 39025/-. The complainant is bound by the terms and condition mentioned in the admission form. Condition no. 4 mentioned in the said form specifically mentions “ FEES ONCE PAID SHALL NOT BE REFUNDED”.
6. The opponent has further submitted that the competent authority and Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai governs the process of selection and refund of fees by framing rules and as per rule 10. 51 “ On or after first November of academic year in which candidate is admitted- No refund permissible. The complainant attended college till 10/11/2000 therefore the complainant is not entitled for refund of fees. The opponent further submitted that their institute is unaided and having no grant. The institute incurs loss of Rs. 50000/- in the event of a student leaving the college and one seat lying vacant. The opponents have not rendered any deficiency in service nor have adopted unfair trade practice therefore the Consumer Complaint deserves to be dismissed being frivolous.
7. The forum partly allowed the complaint with directions as aforesaid.
8. The forum has observed that the submission of the opponent that the candidate who has availed of the admission by filling in the form is bound by the conditions mentioned therein cannot be accepted.
9. The complainant was selected for admission in a free seat in the second round does not render the selection of the first round as final therefore the fact that the complainant attended college till 10/11/2000 and no refund of fee is allowed after 1/11/2000 according to the rules cannot be accepted. The forum has further observed since the selection process was going on till 17/11/2000 and the complainant was selected on 10/11/2000, the recourse to rule 10.5.1 for non refund of fees is not available to the opponent. Rule no. 10.5.1 is available only when rule no. 10.5.2 is not applicable.
10. The forum has observed that the issue before it is under rule 10.5.2 only and therefore the complainant is entitled to the refund of fee of Rs. 38525/- after deducting Rs. 500/- as administrative charges, with 12% interest from 1/2/2001 and compensation of Rs. 10000/- and 1000/- more towards cost of proceedings.
11. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order the opponent Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Science college has filed this appeal.
12. Counsel for both the sides have filed Written Notes of Arguments on record. We heard Adv. Ms Saboo for the appellant, since none for the respondent was present, we had no opportunity to hear the counsel for the respondent orally however we perused the Written Notes of Arguments filed by the respondent. We also perused the copy of the complaint written version copy of the rules for Selection to courses in Health Sciences for 2000-01 of The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik and the documents filed on record
13. We perused the rule 10.5 which specifically deals with Refund of Fees. Rule 10.5.1 deals with Part Refund of Admission Fees and Rule 10.5.2 deals with Full Refund of Admission Fees. Rule 10.5.1 prescribes for Refund of Admission Fees if a candidate who has confirmed admission, cancels his admission by submitting an application then the fee may be refunded after deduction. Clause 3 of the said Rule mentions “ On or after 1st Nov. of academic year in which candidate is admitted- No Refund permissible.
14. We also perused Rule 10.5.2 which prescribes for full refund of admission fees “If the candidate cancels admissions on the ground that he or she has been admitted to any other course at degree level by another Competent Authority appointed by the State Government for the same year, full refund shall be made at any stage after deducting Rs. 500/- (Five Hundred Only) as administrative charges. In our opinion the complainant is not entitled to the refund of fees as per either Rule 10.5.1 or Rule 10.5.2 since he had sought for the refund of fees on 01/02/2001 that is much after 1st Nov. 2000. Secondly the complainant has taken admission in the same course in another college also deprives him of the refund since the Rule prescribes for refund only if the candidate has sought admission to any other course at degree level.
15. The complainant also failed to bring on record that he had not availed of any service rendered by the college. Admittedly he attended the college till 10/11/2000. It is also not the case of complainant that the services of Education were not rendered by the opponent. Therefore availing of services and then seeking refund of the fees cannot be sustained.
16. The Forum further holding that the student filling in the form is not bound by the conditions mentioned therein cannot sustain in law because it is an accepted position that a person filling in the form and duly signing the same renders himself bound by the terms and conditions mentioned therein.
17. For the foregoing reasons the order passed by the forum granting the refund of fees on such erroneous findings cannot sustain in law. Therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed.
In the result we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 11/06/2010 passed in Consumer Complaint no. 173 of 2001 is quashed and set aside.
3. Consumer complaint no. 173 of 2001 stands dismissed.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case parties to bear to their own cost.
