IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member,
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 45/2019 (filed on 09-04-2019)
Petitioner : Abdul Karim V.M,
Vazheekaringanathil,
Chamampathal P.O.,
Vazhoor, Kottayam – 686517.
(Adv.E.S. Rajesh)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. The Principal,
IFIM Law College,
Electronic City Phase 1
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 5601100.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Chamampathal Branch,
Kottayam – 686517.
(Adv.Manu J. Varappally)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows:
Ashbin V. Karim son of the complainant took admission at the first opposite party law college for BBA LLB Course in the year 2018-2023. The fee for the course paid to the first opposite party through the second opposite party bank. At the time of taking admission, the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 that if his son got an admission for LLB course through Kerala Law Entrance Examination, he will withdraw from course and will join the law college in Kerala. The opposite party orally promised to refund all the fees except Rs.20,000/-being the admission fee. The complainant’s son got a good rank in Kerala Law Entrance Examination and joined Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram. But on withdrawal from the first opposite party’s Law College they refused to refund the amounts contrary to their promise. The refund request was given on 11.09.2018. All the original certificates were returned but rejected the refund of fees, by stating that the application for withdrawal should be submitted maximum within one month from the last date of admission and the last date of admission was the registration date. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, the copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The second opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The version of the second opposite party is as follows. The second opposite party had done all its services as per the written application of the petitioner / his agent. All the transactions were done without any delay and in timely manner. Second opposite party bank has no connection in rejecting the fee refund by the first opposite party. The payment of fees and its refund is only between the complainant and first opposite party. Ajmal Kareem another son of the complainant is maintaining a savings bank account with the opposite party with account No.67248216320. Through this account Ajmal had done NEFT transfer of Rs.1,34,700/- and Rs.5,000/- in favour of the first opposite party on 21.07.2018. A card payment of Rs.20,000/- has been done on 27.07.2018 and a DD with No.476975797 was taken in favour of the first opposite party on 03.08.2018 for an amount of Rs.63,000/-. All other allegations against the opposite party are denied. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the second opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A7. The second opposite party field proof affidavit.
The first opposite party acknowledged the copy of the complaint. But first opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The fist opposite party was set ex-parte.
On going through the complaint, Proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
- If so what are the reliefs and costs.
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider points No.1 and 2 together.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant’s son Ashbin V. Karim took admission for BBA LLB course for the year 2018-2023 at the first opposite party Law College. An amount of Rs.2,18,000/- was paid to the first opposite party college through the second opposite party from the account of another son of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the offer of provisional admission for BBA LLB 2018-2023 issued to Ashbin V. Karim issued by the first opposite party.
As per Ext.A1 the student is required to make a payment of non-refundable fee of Rs.20,000/- upon acceptance of the provisional offer ie, July 9, 2018. The balance of the first year fee of Rs.1,10,000/- is to be paid on or before July 25, 2018 failing which the provisional admission will stand automatically cancelled. Ext. A2 is a fee receipt issued by the first opposite party showing the payment of Rs.63,000/- towards hostel fee paid on 02.08.2018. Ext. A3 is the fee receipt for admission fee of Rs.20,000/- dated 06.08.2018. Ext. A4 is the fee receipt for an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards tuition fee, student council fund, hostel security deposit, issued on 06.08.2018. Ext.A5 is receipt dated 07.08.2018 for Rs.5,000/- towards Alumni Association Fund. Ext.A6 is the copy of the application submitted before the first opposite party for the return of certificates and refund of fee. Ext.A7 is the notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party requesting to give proportionate refund. It is clear that the complainant’s son Ashbin V. Karim took admission on 06.08.2018 and the classes were started on 08.08.2018. The Kerala Law Entrance Examination was on 29.07.2018 and the first allotment was on 12.09.2018. The allotment in Kerala was delayed to the heavy rain fall and flood occurred in Kerala.
The conditions for admission was issued in Ext.A1. In Ext.A1 we can see that the non-refundable admission fee Rs.20,000/- should be paid on 9th July,2018 and the balance of fee for the first year to be paid on or before 25 July,2018. But Ext.A3 it is clear that the admission fee was paid on 27.07.2018 and as per Ext.A4 the fee were paid on 31.07.2018. This shows that the first opposite party had accepted the fees paid even after the due dates. Moreover there is no evidence to show that a dead line for refund of fee was intimated to the son of the complainant. The first opposite party is liable to give the refund of the fee collected except the non-refundable admission fee. The act of the first opposite party is not giving the refund of the hostel fee, student council fund, hostel security deposit will amount to deficiency in service on their part. Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and we pass the following order.
The first opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- to Ashbin V. Karim son of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. If not complied, the award amount will carry 6% interest p.a. from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of February, 2022.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Admission offer letter 07.09.2018
A2- Fee Receipt No.11513
A3- Fee Receipt No.11387
A4- Fee Receipt No.11469
A5- Alumni Association Fund Receipt
A6- Application submitted for the return of certificate and refund of fee
A7- Notice issued by the complainant requesting to give proportionate refund.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
