This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 09-10-14 in the presence of Sri J. Ranga Raju, advocate for complainant and of                    Sri C. Narendra Babu, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Prabhakar Gupta, Member:-

This complaint is being filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction against the opposite party for the return of original certificates as mentioned in the prayer of the complaint, in addition to that an amount of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and appropriate reliefs in the circumstances of the case.

 2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The present complainant has studied from VI to X class at Oxford English Medium School, Dachepalli of Guntur District from 2004-05 to                2008-09.   The complainant had been completed the SSC examination as a private candidate and obtained the pass certificate.   He also completed the intermediate course in Majeti Guravaiah Junior College and and obtained marks list for the concerned examination conducted by the Intermediate Board. Subsequently, he attended the EAMCET examinations and qualified in the said examinations.  In between the gap the complainant had joined JKC College belongs to opposite party for the 1^st year B.Sc., on 07-06-13.   Further, he left the college on 2-09-13 by discontinuing the course.   Since he was qualified for the EAMCET examinations he joined in the opposite party college by name GVR & S College of Engineering for completion of engineering course.  For which in the State Council of Higher Education he submitted all his original certificates concerned to the opposite party college for completion of the engiuneering course.   At the time of joining the course he was not paid any fee since he is the candidate for the fees reimbursement by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.   While that is so, the present complainant not attended even a single class and he decided to discontinue in the engineering course.  For which he requested the opposite party authorities to return the original certificates which were forwarded by the EAMCET counseling authority to the opposite party college.   Since the complainant discontinued the concerned engineering course and there is no scope for admission of another candidate the college authorities demanded for the payment of fees of Rs.1,40,000/- to return the original certificates.  But for the payment of said amount the present complainant refused to follow and issue number of reminders for the return of the said certificates.   Inspite of issuance of registered notice the opposite party authorities not chosen to return the certificates and insisted for the payment of due amount on one pretext or other. As there is no other go the present complainant approached this Forum and filed the present complaint for grant of reliefs as prayed for.

3.     In reply to the complaint the opposite party filed their version admitting the fact of admission in their college handing over all the original certificates pertaining to the complainant and denied the fact of deficiency of service on their part since the complainant made himself to discontinue the course.   Further, they also mentioned that as there is no scope to fill up the place of the present complainant, and so they forced to demand for the payment of fee amount since he was joined under the scheme of fees reimbursement by the Government of AP.  Further, they also mentioned that the nature of the present dispute not pertaining to consumer dispute and so this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the present case.  Further, they also mentioned that they are ready and willing to handover the original certificates if the complainant paid the due amount to them.   As there is no deficiency on their part and attitude of the complainant itself comes under the negligent act and miss-behavior against opposite party, they prayed this Forum to dismiss the present complaint with exemplary costs.         

4.      To prove the case of the complainant, he filed documents which were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-11.   No documents were filed on behalf of opposite party.   Both parties have filed their affidavits in respect of their versions.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether this Forum is having Jurisdiction to entertain the case since       the nature of the dispute is not a consumer dispute?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the          opposite party? If so,

          3. to what relief? 

6.    The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the present complainant is the holder of the certificates marked under Exs.A-1 to A-9 which are pertaining to his qualifications and studying in the colleges.   Since he is the eligible candidate according to the EAMCET and as per the counseling made by the EAMCET authorities, he handed over his original certificates to the opposite party through EAMCET counsel and got admission in the college of opposite party.   As he is unable to continue in the joined course of engineering, he decided to leave the opposite party college and to continue studies in degree course near by Dachepalli or Piduguralla.   For which, he requested to return the original certificates from the opposite party since he was joined under the scheme of fee reimbursement by the Government of AP.   Due to one pretext or other the opposite party not handed over the original certificates and thus they caused deficiency of service inspite of demands and issuance of registered notices and making demand of fee payment of Rs.1,40,000/-.  This act clearly falls under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and so this Fora is having jurisdiction, and this complainant is entitled for grant of reliefs as prayed for.

7.      The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant has been joined in their college through the EAMCET counsel under the fee reimbursement scheme. Due to discontinue of the present complainant the opposite party college not in a position to receive the amounts of fee under the fees reimbursement scheme from the Government of AP.   As the intimation was given by the complainant at a later stage none were come forward to join in the course and the same may be kept vacancy for the further years also.   This act of the complainant makes much damages and loss to the opposite party.   Now also the opposite party is ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e., giving education to the complainant and the complainant himself not willing to continue his studies in the opposite party college.   So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and this Fora is not at all having jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint since it is not a consumer dispute, and so the complaint is liable for dismissal.

8.  POINT No.1:-     With the above discussions and on the strength of the material available on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the holder of exhibits marked in this case and joined in the college of the opposite party.   Further, it is also an admitted fact that the complainant joined under the scheme of fees reimbursement from the Government of Andhra Pradesh.   There is no dispute with regard to these facts.  Now the discussing point is whether the dispute is having the nature of consumer dispute.   As per the facts of the case the opposite party is an educational institution established to serve as an institution.   Further, the present complainant is the student of the said college who joined in the opposite party college through EAMCET counsel.   The present dispute is pertaining to the return of certificates belongs to the complainant from the opposite party.   As per the view taken by the State Commission of Maharashtra in a case Sushant Yuvaraj Rode vs. Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College & Another  that student is a consumer and the dispute with regard to student and college are all comes under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.   The said decision has been reported in 1993 (III) CPR 624 delivered by Maharashtra State Commission wherein their lordship held that a student is a consumer of service of educational institution and he is entitled to refund of fees if no services are rendered by the institute.   Further as the opposite party providing educational service on the receipt of fee directly from the complainant or indirectly through the Government of A.P., the complainant is a consumer and the present dispute is a consumer dispute.

9.  POINT No.2:-   Coming to the deficiency of service we observe Ex.A-1 which is the provisional allotment order issued by the counsel of higher education of AP.   By this document it has been construed that the present complainant joined in the opposite party college under the scheme of fee reimbursement by the Government of AP.   It is also construed that at the time of complainant’s joining in the college he was not paid any amount towards fees.   As per the contents of the sworn affidavit of the complainant in para 5 it was mentioned that “I had not attended even a single class of the opposite party college, however, I sought that I cannot continue studies in Engineering, and thought that I would go back my village Janapadu to assist the family, and get educated in any degree course near Dachepalli and Piduguralla”, by this mention it is clear that the complainant himself withdrawn from the studies from the opposite party college due to on his personal reasons.   As per the contents of the opposite party affidavit it is mentioned that “the complainant himself discontinued the course without proper intimation and as the opposite party suffered loss the complainant is liable to pay the fee demanded by the opposite party”.  On perusal of Ex.A-1 there is no doubt that the opposite party college not received even a single pie from the complainant.   Further, it is the defect of the complainant that he himself withdrawn from the college due to his own personal problems.   This act is not at all a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.   If a student voluntarily discontinues the studies and withdraws from the college or institution he has no right to demand refund of the fees deposited by them.   This view has been expressed by the State Commission of Chandigarh in a case Khalsa college for Women, Ludhiana vs. Haieen Kaur and others reported in 2008 CTJ 880 (CP) (SCDRC).   Another view also expressed by A.P.State Commission in a case Pydah College vs. E. Mohan Rao & another reported in III (1998) CPJ 339 therein their lordships held that “The rationale for this is that the educational institution is willing and ready to impart education but it is the student who is responsible for not receiving the service by leaving the institution abruptly.   No equitable considerations weigh, under those circumstances, when in fact there is no deficiency in service.”

          By all these views this Fora came to a safe conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party college and so the complaint is liable for dismissal.

10.  POINT No.3:-  In view of above discussion and in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

           Dictated to Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 24th day of October, 2014.

          MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

          DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:  NIL

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.