Date of Filing: 16/09/2011
Date of Order: 29/09/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1718 OF 2011
Mrs. Shyni Shivakumar,
W/o. M.Shivakumar,
Aged About 37 years,
R/at: No.145, 3rd Cross,
HVR Layout, Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore-560 079
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.M.R.Kumar) Complainant.
-V/s-
The Chairman,
Indian Institute of Fashion Techonlogy,
# 3, 1/6, M.C. Road, 1st Cross,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 079. Opposite party.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to refund the admission amount after deducting the fee for the duration of classes attended by the complainant, are necessary:-
The complainant had taken admission on 19.01.2011 for one year course of PG Diploma in FDBM (Fashion Designing and Boutique Management) of March-2011 batch of the opposite party. The fee was fixed at Rs.60,000/- for the course. At the time of the admission the complainant has paid Rs.200/- on 17.01.2011 towards prospectus and a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 19.01.2011 as per the payment schedule of the opposite party. The complainant was attending the classes and paid further sum of Rs.20,000/- on 15.03.2011. A final installment should have been paid on 10.04.2011. On 07.04.2011 the complainant was diagnosed as pregnant of two months and the doctor advised complete bed rest till delivery since she was predicted for threatened abortion. Hence the complainant could not attend the classes and discontinued the classes, though she was interested in attending the classes. A request for refund of the money did not yield any result, hence she issued notice to the opposite party on 10.07.2011 to which an untenable reply was given by the opposite party on 10.08.2011. Hence the complaint.
2. Heard.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is any prima facie case of any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice to issue process to the opposite party?
- What order?
4. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) & (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
5. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on record, it is seen that the opposite party is an educational institution conducting classes of Glamorous Careers and Glorious Future in Fashion Designing of one year course of PG diploma in FDBM and it charges Rs.60,000/- fees for the academic year. It had offered to collect the fee in three installments. It is also seen that the said course had a fixed intake of student and for every student the opposite party spends a lot of amount on various aspects during the course including payment to faculty, to the guest faculty and other things. There cannot be replacement of any new student is possible for any other student discontinued or quitting the course.
6. It is further seen on 17.01.2011 the complainant took the prospects of the opposite party by paying Rs.200/- and paid Rs.20,000/- on 19.01.2011 and started attending the classes. She paid another sum of Rs.20,000/- on 15.03.2011 the second installments, and attended the classes. She should have paid another sum of Rs.20,000/- on 10.04.2011 which she has not paid. She has attended the classes up to 07.04.2011. From 07.04.2011 she did not attend the classes she discontinued the classes. What she has stated is on 07.04.2011 the Doctors found that the complainant was pregnant of two months and advised her complete bed rest and because of that she discontinued the classes. If she had discontinued the classes it is her mistake or it is her own wrong or it is her own volition for which nobody could blame the opposite party.
7. Further it is seen that she has issued notice to the opposite party for refund of the amount on 20.07.2011. From 07.04.2011 till 20.07.2011 she did not attend the classes nor informed anything to the opposite party of her discontinuation. The opposite party continued to paying the costs to the lecturers and other faculties and other expenses.
8. It is further seen that she was admitted to the hospital on 20.07.2011 and her pregnancy was terminated on 20.07.2011, she had to blame for her misfortune. The opposite party to her notice has replied on 10.08.2011, at Para-4 to 6 of the reply reads thus:-
My client further informs that the said course has a fixed intake of students and for every student the college spends a lot of amount on various aspects during the course including payment to faculty and to the guest faculty. It is pertinent to note that no replacement of a new student is possible for any other student discontinuing/quitting the course.
My client further informs that it is in fact your client who has to make the payment of another installment of Rs.20,000/- as the college has already incurred your clients expenses.
My client is therefore not liable to refund the admission amount as requested by your client. On the other hand my client reserves their right to recover the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- payable by your client. If, despite this reply, your client proceeds with any action, she shall be doing so at entirely her risks, costs and consequences.”
This speaks for itself. There is no per contra material to this reply. Thus there is no deficiency of service.
9. Only because of her misfortune she wants the money back as if that is the case, she has to approach the Civil Court seeking mercy or enforcement of any contract. Here there is no deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 29th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
