BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

Complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with litigation cost, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant showed interest in taking admission with the institution of OPs after receiving information about the institution from one of the existing student of the same institution.  That the complainant visited the website of OP institution and submitted online application for admission to PGDM admission 2013-15 and made a payment of Rs.1,100/- on 14.03.2013 towards the application form.  That the complainant received email dated 08.04.2013 from OPs regarding the Group Discussion/Personal Interview (GD/PI) to be held on 13.04.2013 at 9.30 am at IIM Centre – Kolkata, Institute of Management Calcutta, City Annexe Harrington Mansion.  That the complainant attended the GI/PI session at Kolkata on the scheduled date.  That OPs did not hand over any prospectus, brochure or any other booklet/informational book regarding the admission to IFIM Business School and nowhere any refund policy, rules were ever communicated to the complainant.  That the complainant deposited an advance fee of Rs.1,00,000/- for his course PGDM Finance 2013-15 in the account of OP institution through State Bank of India on 19.04.2013.

That the complainant received provisional admission offer letter dated 16.04.2013 from IFIM Business School (OP).  That the complainant received the welcome letter dated 23^rd May 2013 from OPs.  That in the provisional offer letter dated 16.04.2013 or welcome letter dated 23.04.2013, though the fee remittance structure was clearly mentioned, there was no mention of any refund, cancellation policy of the OP.  That the complainant arrived in Bangalore on 21^st June 2013 for joining the institution.  But due to his own health condition and getting information about deterioration of his father’s health condition who is suffering from neuro problems, the complainant returned to his hometown Agartala, Tripura State on 26^th June 2013.  That before leaving Bangalore on 25^th June 2013 complainant called the OPs Institution and intimated his intention to withdraw his admission and demanded refund of his tuition fees for which Mr.Srinivas from admission office of OP institution informed the complainant that all refund decision shall be considered by 30^th June 2013.  Thereafter again on 1^st July 2013 complainant called Mr.Srinivas, Admission office and he informed the complainant that the refund process shall take another 15 days and directed the complainant to send email to initiate the refund process.  That complainant sent a formal email to OP institution as directed by Mr.Srinivas on 2^nd July 2013.  That on 31^st July 2013 the complainant and his local guardian in Bangalore called the OP institution and Mr.Srinivas, directed again to send email to IFIM Business School requesting for the withdrawal form.  Accordingly a request was made OP institution by local guardian of the complainant in Bangalore.  That the refund claim form was received by the complainant on the same day.  That the complainant sent the filled-in refund claim form to OP institution on 1^st August 2013.  That on 1^st August 2013 an email was received from OP institution in which it was clearly mentioned that the withdrawal application was under process and that fees shall be returned shortly.

That on 5^th August 2013 Mr.Srinivas from OP institution called and directed the complainant and his local guardian in Bangalore to resend the refund claim form to the email address of OP and accordingly complainant again sent the refund claim.  That on 19^th August 2013, Mr.Srinivas from OP institution informed the complainant and his local guardian was over telephone that cheque for the entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be sent through courier to the address of Bijit Bhowmik by Thursday, 22^nd August 2013.  That on 29^th August 2013, the complainant and his local guardian in Bangalore called OP institution because no cheque was till then received by the complainant.  Mr.Srinivas of OP institution informed that the process shall initiate from the Registrar Office soon for the refund.  This is contrary to the communication made to the complainant on 19^th August 2013.  Thereafter complainant and his local guardian in Bangalore demanded OP for the refund of Rs.1,00,000/- several times either through Mr.Srinivas A.M, Admission office, or through OP-2 the Registrar.  That on 11^th September 2013 the local guardian of complainant in Bangalore sent an e-mail to Registrar to refund of the fees and informed him about the past communication with OP institution to receptionist addressed to the Registrar and also got acknowledgement on all the papers delivered on that day.  That on 29^th October 2013 Mr.Mahadev Kokkari, Registrar from OP institution wrote to the complainant with a copy to the local guardian of the complainant in Bangalore that the candidate is not eligible for refund.

That OP is guilty of unfair trade practices and deficient services.  That the above act of OP is tarnishing the image of Bangalore as an education hub by resorting to unfair trade practices and it is a matter of fact that North East India is isolated from the main land India and there are thousands of students who come to Bangalore to pursue their higher studies and these kind of news about educational institution will only damage the reputation of Bangalore as an education hub.  That the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- with up to date interest and compensation for causing harassment, frustration and mental agony and loss of his academic year and OPs are liable to make payment of amount.  That the complainant belongs to lower middle class family and his father is employed as a teacher in Government School under the Government of Tripura and presently he is suffering from neuro problems.

For the reasons mentioned above, complainant prays for allowing the complaint as prayed for.

3. In response to the notice issued OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending that the complainant was admitted to the PGDM – General Course for the academic years 2013-15 and made payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the designated account of OP-1 maintained in the State Bank of India on 19^th March 2013 and further contended as under:

That the complainant is not covered under the definition of Consumer and the OPs are also not covered under the definition of Service Provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, this Forum does not have a jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  That OP-1 is a reputed Institute of Finance and International Management and OP-2 is working in a leading Business School, which provides an opportunity to students to become business-ready managers trained to compete with the best in the industry.  That the said business school has devised a unique education model that blends various teaching and learning methodologies to create a holistic professional and leader-equipped to deal with both business and personal challenges equally well.  That while admitting the complainant, OP informed him that, in case of any withdrawal/refund of the aforesaid amount has to be claimed as per the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as “AICTE”) refund policy and the same was acknowledged by the complainant.  That the complainant was offered the provisional admission offer letter on 16^th April 2013.  That the complainant joined the course at OP Institution which commenced on 24^th June 2013.

That the complainant made a formal complaint for withdrawal of admission and requested for refund on 2^nd July 2013 after commencement of the aforesaid course and as such the said request made by the complainant was rejected by OPs as the same was not according to terms as agreed by the complainant.  That since the request for refund was made after the date of commencement of the course he was clearly informed that he was not entitled for any refund of the amount in accordance with AICTE norms and policies.  That the complainant was specially instructed that any request for withdrawal of provisional admission has to be made in accordance with the AICTE norms and policies.  That complainant is not entitled to any additional claim as provided under the AICTE norms and policies.  Accordingly the complainant shall be entitled only for the recourse as provided under the AICTE norms and policies with respect to cases of withdrawal.

For the above, amongst other reasons OPs prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OPs tendered their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating their respective contentions.  Both parties have produced certain documents in support of the respective cases.  Written arguments have been filed.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7.  Admittedly the complainant was admitted to OP institution for PGDM course for the year 2013-15 and initially made payment of Rs.1,100/- towards application form on 14.03.2013.  Thereafter in pursuance of the email dated 08.04.2013 received from OPs, the complainant attended personal interview held on 13^th April 2013 at IIM Centre, Kolkata.  Complainant thereafter deposited an advance fee of Rs.1,00,000/- to his course PGDM Finance 2013-15 in the account of OPs which is not in dispute.  However, there was some discrepancy while issuing voucher by OPs for the advance fees of Rs.1,00,000/- received from complainant.  Though the amount was deposited on 19.04.2013, the voucher issued by OP showed that the amount was deposited on 16.04.2013.  Complainant has brought to the notice of OP regarding the said discrepancy.  The complainant thereafter received a provisional admission offer letter dated 16.04.2013 from OP and also welcome letter dated 23^rd May 2013.  It is pertinent to note that, in the provisional offer letter dated 16.04.2013 or in the welcome letter dated 23.05.2013, though the fee remittance structure was mentioned, however there was no mention of the refund/cancellation policy in the event the candidate withdraws or cancels his registration.

8. Complainant states that, he arrived in Bangalore on 21^st June 2013 for joining the OP Institution, in pursuance of the admission obtained and the initial advance fees paid by him.  Complainant claims that, immediately after coming over to Bangalore, he faced certain health issues and started suffering with diarrhea and despite treatment by the doctor his health did not improve.  Complainant to substantiate that, he suffered with diarrhea and vomiting etc., has produced notarized copy of medical record dated 25.06.2013 issued by Rajmahal Vilas hospital which discloses that he was treated for loose stools as well as vomiting.  The said record also discloses the details of the medical treatment provided to him.

9. OPs did not deny that, the complainant suffered with serious health issues immediately after arriving at Bangalore for the purpose of joining the course.  The sworn testimony of complainant coupled with the said medical record establish that the complainant immediately after reaching Bangalore suffered with diarrhea and vomiting for which he was forced to undergo medical treatment.

10. Complainant claims that, apart from his health issues at Bangalore, he also received information from his native place that the health condition of his father who was suffering from neuro problems had deteriorated.  Because of his health issues as well as the serious health condition of his father, the complainant has returned to his home town Agartala in the State of Tripura on 26^th June 2013.  OPs does not deny that complainant returned to his home town Agartala on 26^th June 2013 much before the commencement of the course.

11. According to the welcome letter dated 23^rd May 2013 issued to complainant by OPs, the copy of which is at Annexure-I, the inauguration of the course was slated on 26^th June 2013, orientation-cum-induction course was slated between 27^th June to 29^th June 2013 and Foundation course classes were to begin on 1^st July 2013 from 9 AM onwards.  Admittedly the complainant who arrived in Bangalore on 21^st June 2013 with an intention of joining the course has returned to his native home town on 26^th June 2013 because of the reasons stated above, even without attending either the inauguration function or the orientation-cum-induction course.  Admittedly the complainant has not attended the Foundation course classes which began on 1^st July 2013 as mentioned in the welcome letter dated 23^rd May 2013 at Annexure-I.  Thus it is apparent that, the complainant has not attended the course, which he chose to study, even for a day.  The complainant was also not present at Bangalore when the classes commenced on the 1^st of July 2013.

12. The complainant alleges that on 25^th June 2013 itself he called upon one Mr.Srinivas in the Admission Office of OP and informed him about his decision to withdraw from the course and requested him for refund of his tuition fees.  He further alleges that, the said Mr.Srinivas from the Admission Office informed him that, all the refund decisions shall be considered by 30^th June 2013.  Complainant further alleges that, on 1^st July 2013 he again made a call to the Srinivas at which time, he was informed that the refund process shall take another 15 days and directed the complainant to send e-mail to initiate the refund process.  In response to the said intimation of Mr.Srinivas, the complainant has sent an email to OPs on 2^nd July 2013 and the hard copy of the email is produced and is marked at Annexure-J.  OPs in their version though denied any such request by complainant on 25^th June 2013 or on 1^st July 2013, however they did not deny that one Mr.Srinivas is working in their Admission Office.  They also did not examine the said Srinivas to substantiate their contention that the complainant never communicated Mr.Srinivas about his decision to withdraw from the course and requested for refund of the admission fees.  OPs admits the reply of 2^nd July 2013 from complainant requesting for refund of the admission fee of Rs.1,00,000/-.

13. When the complainant and his local guardian at Bangalore called upon the OPs, the said Mr.Srinivas again directed to send an e-mail in withdrawal form.  Accordingly, the complainant sent his refund claim in the appropriate form as requested by Mr.Srinivas to OP institution on 1^st of August 2013.  Copy of the said form is produced and marked at Annexure-K.  The OP after having received the said claim form at Annexure-K from complainant have sent a e-mail reply, the hard copy of which is at Annexure-L.  The said reply sent by OPs dated 1^st August 2013 reads as under:

“Dear Candidate,

With reference to your mail/letter regarding withdrawal of PGDM admission, we would like to inform you that your withdrawal application is under process.  Fees refund will be done shortly.

If you have not filled the admission Withdrawal form, plz fill the same and send it”.

14. After several communications between complainant and OPs and specially after the e-mail dated 1^st August 2013 at Annexure-L, finally OPs informed complainant by their e-mail dated 29^th October 2013, at Annexure-P, stating that complainant is not eligible for any refund of the fee.  OPs having stated in their e-mail dated 1^st August 2013 that the refund of fee will be made shortly, have refused to refund the fee on the ground that the complainant is not eligible to get any refund of the fee.  OPs did not assign any reasons in their e-mail dated 29^th October 2013 for their refusal to refund the fees.

15. The learned advocate for complainant argued that, OPs are not at all justified in refusing to refund the fee, once having agreed to refund the same by their e-mail dated 1^st August 2013.  As already stated above, OPs did not assign any reasons as to why the complainant is not eligible for refund of admission fees paid by him.  In para-7 of their affidavit, OPs took up a contention that, the request for refund was made only after commencement of the course on 1^st July 2013.  As already stated above, the complainant has made request for refund of fees on 25^th June 2013 itself by informing the same to Mr.Srinivas working in the admission department.  At the instruction of the said Srinivas, the complainant has sent the request for refund in a appropriate pro-forma.  OP did not deny that the said Srinivas is not working in the admission department.  OPs also did not deny that the said Srinivas asked complainant to send his request for refund in a proper pro-forma.  It is apparent from the material placed on record that, the complainant has made request for cancellation of his admission and for refund much before the commencement of the course.

16. In para-8 of their affidavit the authorized signatory of OP state that the request for withdrawal for refund of the fee paid by the complainant towards admission was made after 30 days from the date of commencement of the course.  Therefore, the complainant was informed that, he was not entitled for any refund in accordance with AICTE norms and policies.  This statement of OPs is totally in correct in view of the fact that the oral request by the complainant was made on 25^th June and certain request was made on 2^nd July 2013 despite receipt of the above said receipt for refund of fees much before the commencement of the course.  OPs falsely contend that the request for refund of fees was made 30 days after commencement of the course.

17. OPs claim that his request for refund was refused in accordance with the AICTE norms and policies.  Both the parties have produced the relevant terms and policies governing the refund of the fees in the given circumstances.  The relevant portion of the terms and conditions governing the refund of the fees reads as under:

“In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat.  The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only, shall be refunded and returned by the Institution to the student/candidate with drawing from the programme.  It would not be permissible for Institutions to retain the School Institution Leaving Certificates in original.  Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, wherever applicable”.  

18. In view of the above said AICTE norms, the complainant is certainly entitled for refund of fees since he has withdrawn from the course prior to commencement of the course.  OPs at the most are entitled to deduct a sum not more than Rs.1,000/- towards processing fee/administrative fees.  Since the complainant has withdrawn from the said course prior to commencement of the course, he is entitled for refund of the fees as per the norms prescribed by AICTE referred to above.

19. Time and again the apex Consumer Court has held that in a circumstances like this, the University/College/Institution are liable to refund fees to the student when he withdraws prior to commencement of course after deducting certain nominal amount towards administrative/process charges.  In the instant case, we feel it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the fees after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/-.

20. The learned advocate for the OPs argued that, the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’ and OPs are also not covered under the definition of ‘Service Provider’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  Complainant relied upon the judgments rendered cases between FIIT JEE Ltd V/s. Ishan Punj, reported in III (2014) CPJ 219 (NC) and also judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case between UHBVNL & other Vs. Shashi Chander reported in IV (2014) CPJ 477 (NC).  Perused the judgment rendered by Apex Consumer Court in FIIT JEE Ltd., referred supra, which is subsequent to decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur in AIR 2010 (SCW) 6001 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha.  In the case between FIIT JEE Limited Vs. Ishan Punj, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has opined that the Consumer Foras have jurisdiction to entertain a dispute like the one on hand.  In the said case the complainant therein joined the OP Institution in February 2006 for a period of two years classroom programme for IIT joint entrance examination and paid Rs.76,589/- as fees and after attending classes up to January 2007, complainant found that the education imparted at OP Institution was not fruitful, so vide letter dated 08.02.2007 and 19.02.2007 complainant therein intimated OP therein that he did not want to continue with the course and requested for refund of the balance fee of two years.  As the refund was not made, the complainant approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP, therein.  The said complaint was entertained by District Forum and OP therein was directed to refund Rs.69,500/- out of Rs.76,589/- paid by the complainant.  When the matter reached the Apex Consumer Court, the order passed by District Forum was upheld with certain modifications.  Thus, it is amply clear that in a matter like this the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint like the one on hand.  Therefore, we don’t find any substance in the contention of OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

21. OPs certainly have no justification in retaining the fee paid by complainant all these years despite his withdrawing from the course and requesting repeatedly for refund of the fees.  Therefore, we feel it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.99,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a from 2^nd July 2013 till the date of realization.  Further the conduct of OPs in denying the refund of the fees without justifiable reasons must have caused the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  Therefore, we propose to direct OPs to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

22. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

23.  Point No.2 - In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part. 

OPs are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Only) to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a from 2^nd July 2013 till the date of realization.  Further OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to complainant for having caused him great inconvenience and mental agony together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

OPs shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 25^th day of November 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 09.04.2015.

1. Sri.Bijit Bhownik.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties.1 & 2 dated 05.05.2015.

Mr.Mahadev Kokkari.  

Document produced by the Opposite parties

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*