Karnataka

StateCommission

A/3476/2011

Aamir Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Institution of Journalism & - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy

13 Jul 2021

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/3476/2011
( Date of Filing : 12 Oct 2011 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 13/09/2011 in Case No. CC/2997/2010 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional)
 
1. Aamir Khan
S/o. Shahi Rasul, Now Aged about 23 yeras, R/at II Main Road, Taramani, Chennai 600113 .
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Indian Institution of Journalism &
New Media, # 316, 5th Cross, HRBR Layout, 3rd Block, Kalyananagar Post, Bangalore 560043 Rep. by its Dean Abraham M. George .
2. Indian Institute of Journalism ,
New Media, # 316, 5th Cross, HRBR Layout, 3rd Block, Kalyananagar Post, Bangalore 560043 Rep. by its Secretary .
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 13 Jul 2021
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

 

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 3476/2011

Aamir Khan,

S/o Shahi Rasul,

Now aged about 23 years,

R/at 2nd Main Road,

Taramani, Chennai 600 113.

 

(By Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy)

 

……Appellant/s

 

V/s

1.

Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media,

No.316, 5th Cross,

HRBR Layout, 3rd Block,

Kalyananagar Post,

Bangalore 560 043,

Represented by its Dean

Mr. Abraham.M.George.

 

…Respondent/s

2.

Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media,

No.316, 5th Cross,

HRBR Layout, 3rd Block,

Kalyananagar Post,

Bangalore 560 043,

Rep. by its Secretary.

 

(By Sri K.S. Harish)

 

 

ORDER

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.13.09.2011 passed in CC.No.2997/2010 on the file of 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2.      The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he had applied for an admission to the Opposite Party Institution by paying Rs.50,000/- as an admission fee and tuition fee.  Due to unavoidable circumstances, he was unable to get admitted to the first semester and requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid at the time of registration for which they refused to refund the amount as they have mentioned in their letter and as per the notification.  Aggrieved by the said refusal, the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and prays for refund of the said amount.  After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the Opposite Party Institution have mentioned in their notification of selection that the said amount is non refundable under any circumstances and also relied upon the letter wrote by the Opposite Party to confirm the acceptance of admission within 31st May 2010 and dismissed the complaint. 

3.      Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal.  Heard the arguments.

4.      On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the documents before the District Commission, we noticed that at the time of admission, the Opposite Parties have received an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards registration and tuition fee, but, the complainant after payment of the fee had wrote a letter dt.16.06.2010 expressing his regret in not joining the Opposite Party Institution due to unavoidable circumstances and requested for refund of amount.  The Opposite Party supposed to refund the said amount if he was not admitted to the Institution for the course, because the amount which they have collected is Rs.50,000/- is a huge amount for the sake of registration.  We consider the Opposite Party rendered unfair trade practice in collecting such a huge amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of non-refundable fee if at all the Opposite Party Institution suggest for non-refundable amount towards registration it should be within Rs.10,000/- which is reasonable.  The said amount towards registration and tuition fee collecting under the head of non-refundable is against to natural justice, hence, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount.  Accordingly, we are of the opinion that Rs.10,000/- shall be deducted towards non-refundable amount for registration and tuition fee.  As such the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- is liable to be payable.  The District Commission has made an error in dismissing the genuine complaint.  As such the Order in CC.No.2997/2010 has to be set aside.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the Order in CC.No.2997/2010 is set aside.

The Opposite Parties/respondents are directed to refund Rs.40,000/- to the complainant out of Rs.50,000/- by deducting Rs.10,000/- towards registration fee. 

The Opposite Parties/respondents are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Forward free copies to both parties.

 

Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                          JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

KCS*

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.