This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.N.V.S.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate for the complainant and                             Sri A.M.M.Satyanarayana, Advocate for opposite party and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.P. to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 48% p.a., and to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony on the following averments.

          The petitioner is studying 1^st year B.Tech in Visakhapatnam and he is a resident of Cantonment area Vizianagaram.  Academy people visited the college campus while he was studying intermediate and collected a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him without disclosing the details of the academy.  The petitioner had the intention to join the academy which was not having any recognition under UGC Act but the academy assured the petitioner that after completion of the course they would look for his placement and later he came to know that the academy did not provide any employment to the students as disclosed by the senior students.

          Since the petitioner had no intention to continue studies in the academy he went to the academy many a times to get back the money but the officials of academy abused him in filthy language and did not return back the amount paid by him.  The petitioner got issued a notice dt.11.11.2012 in this regard to which the O.P. gave a contentious reply.  Hence this complaint.

          The O.P. filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the entire cause of action took place in the city of Chennai.  It is averred that the O.P. has published an advertisement in “The Hindu” newspaper with regard to the admissions in its academy for various courses and on seeing such advertisement the complainant approached them and blocked one seat in diploma in Nautical Science Course by making part payment of Rs.25,000/- out of the total cost of the course of Rs. 3 lakhs.  On 25-8-2012 the complainant and his father came to Chennai and completed all the formalities by submitting the complainant’s previous academic records and signed application form to join the above said course.  The Complainant and his father also signed in the declarations that they will abide by the rules and regulations of the O.Ps. academy.  After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant and as the complainant fulfilled the essential requirements, he was sent to undergo medical test on the very same day.  The complainant agreed to pay the balance fee of Rs.2,75,000/- within short period but of no avail.

          On 1-9-2012 the complainant sent a letter to the O.Ps. with a request to cancel the seat reserved for him and to refund the advance amount, as he failed to avail Bank Loan.  Due to the above said act of the complainant the O.Ps. suffered loss to the  tune of Rs.2,75,000/- since the seat reserved for him remained unfilled all along the duration of the said course.  It is averred that the O.P. did not visit Vizianagaram or the college where the complainant alleged to have studied intermediate.  The O.P. is running its academy for the past 12 years and it was recognized by the Directorate General of Shipping which is the competent authority to permit institution to impart Maritime courses all over India.

          It is averred that O.P. academy is affiliated to Karnataka State open University Mysore which is again a University approved under the UGC Act.  It is averred that the O.P. is not responsible for the complainant’s act of non- joining the course after blocking the seat for him.   The request of the complainant could not be considered as the same was practically not possible because it was already utilized to process his application and towards fee for the Medical test under gone by him.  It is averred that the amount paid by the complainant was adjusted towards the loss incurred by the O.P.   It is further averred that the complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands and as there are no bonafides in the complaint the same is liable to be dismissed.

          On behalf of complainant the evidence affidavit of P.W.1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.6 are marked.  On behalf of O.P.s the evidence affidavit of R.W.1 is filed and Ex.B.1 to B.8 are marked.  Heard the counsel for respective parties. Perused the material placed on record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as prayed for ?

Basing on the evidence available on record the learned advocate for the complainant in his written arguments has submitted that the men of O.P. visited the college campus in which the complainant was studying intermediate and without disclosing about the academy collected a sum of Rs.25,000/- and when the complainant came to know about the false promises made by the O.Ps. which had no recognition under UGC Act he did not join the course and asked the O.Ps. to return back the amount and as the O.Ps. did not respond to his request he sent a notice on 11-11-2012 calling upon them to repay the amount to which the O.Ps. gave a contentious reply and as there is deficiency of service on their part, the present complaint is filed seeking the above said reliefs.

As against the above said contention the learned advocate for O.Ps. has contended in his written arguments that there is no deficiency in service rendered by their men towards complainant and they did not make any false promise to get the complainant admitted in their institution and as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of agreement and by-laws of their institution the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

The complainant in his evidence affidavit has reiterated whatever he has stated in his complaint and to support his oral testimony he got marked the receipt for Rs.25,000/- issued by the O.Ps., the copy of notice dt.11-11-2012 original registered slip, acknowledgement of advocate notice, reply letter issued by the academy and 10^th class mark list of the complainant as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 respectively.  As seen from the documents filed into court on behalf of complainant it is clear that the complainant has paid Rs.25,000/- to the O.Ps. under Ex.A.1 receipt and made correspondence with the O.P. to get back the said amount as evident from the notice exchanged in between the parties.

In the counter filed by the O.Ps. they too did not deny about the payment of Rs.25,000/- by the complainant under Ex.A.1 receipt to join diploma in Nautical Science Course of the O.Ps. institution.  As per O.Ps. after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainants they sent the complainant to under go the medical test and when he was found to be fit he was asked to join the above said course and on the request of the complainant he was given two days time to pay the balance fee of Rs.2,75,000/- and to join the course.

It is their further contention that instead of paying the above said sum he sent the communication dt.1-9-2012 to cancel the seat reserved by him and to refund the advance amount.  It is their further contention that the reasons cited by the complainant to cancel the seat reserved by him is that the complainant could not secure the bank loan.  Due to the above said act of the complainant the O.Ps. suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/- as the seat reserved for him was remained unfilled.  Though the complainant has taken a plea that the O.Ps. had no recognition under UGC Act to run the institution he has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the said fact.  As per O.Ps. they are running the academy since 12 years and their academy was recognized by the Directorate General of Shipping which permits the institution to impart maritime courses all over India.  To substantiate the said contention they have filed Ex.B.1 in which the Directorate General of Shippings granted the approval to the O.P. for running the academy.  As per O.Ps. their academy is affiliated to Karnataka State open University Mysore which is a university approved under the UGC Act.  To disprove the said fact the complainant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.  Though he has taken a plea that he was forced to discontinue the course as the O.Ps. academy had no recognition under Sec.3 of UGC Act, the said contention is proved to be false.  As per complainant he is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- which he deposited as an advance to do the above said course but has not placed any cogent evidence to prove that he is legally entitled to get the said amount.

On the other hand the O.Ps. have filed the complainant’s application to join diploma, letter of indemnity given by the complainant to the O.P., acceptance of rules and regulations signed by the complainant, complainant’s admission declaration letter given to the O.Ps. and got the same marked as Ex.B.1 to B.5.  As seen from Ex.B.2 the complainant and his father have signed the declaration and as seen from the contents of the declaration the Board of IMA reserves the right to terminate the complainant’s training without any refund of his fee and the management of IMA will not be liable to compensate  the complainant in any way.  The said declaration further reveals that the complainant and his father read and understood the contents of the prospectus and agreed to all the terms and conditions contained therein.

It further reveals that after selection and joining the IMA the complainant is not entitled to get any amount though for any reason he discontinues the course.  The contents of the said document further reveals that though the complainant reserves the seat for admission by paying reservation fee and if he fails to join the course, the fee whatever paid will not be refunded.  Since, the complainant did not deny the above said declaration given by him under Ex.B.2 he is precluded from contending that he is entitled to get back Rs.25,000/- which he paid under Ex.B.1 as advance to do the above said course.  Ex.B.4 is the acceptance for the rules and regulations of the academy by the complainant.

As seen from the Rule 2, fees once paid are not refundable or transferable for any reason under any circumstances.  According to Rule 11 that no fees partial or full will be refunded if any candidate is required to leave the academy during the training period for any reason.  Similarly as per Rule 12 if any candidate reserves his seat for admission by paying reservation fee and not joining the course, the fee whatever paid will not be refunded. If any candidate cancels his reserved seat even before the commencement of the course, whatever fee paid will not be refunded.  As per Rule 13 the IMA is only the training academy and it is not responsible for the placement.  The above said document was signed by the complainant and his father.  Since the said document was executed by the complainant he is bound by the terms and conditions incorporated therein.  Ex.B.5 is the declaration letter given by the complainant to the O.Ps. at the time of complainant’s admission into the above said course.

As seen from its contents in case the complainant discontinues the course at any time he will not demand any refund of course fee and the academy can take any legal action against him.    Since, the complainant and his father have executed the above said documents and as they did not dispute about the contents of the said documents, they are bound by the above said terms and conditions of the said documents.  It is not the case of complainant that he was coerced or forced to execute the above said documents.  He did not dispute the signatures found on the said documents as not that of his signatures.   The complainant himself has voluntarily discontinued the above said course.  In view of terms and conditions of the above said documents he is not entitled to get the fee paid by him.  Since the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the above said documents he cannot contend that the men of O.Ps. are in dereliction of their duties and there is deficiency of service on their part.  Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 25^th day of April, 2014.

Member                                                           President                                                                                                                                                        

CC. 9 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of receipt for Rs.25,000/-
2. Ex.A.2 True copy of advocate notice with RL slip dt.11-11-2012
3. Ex.A.3 Original Registered slip No.2389
4. Ex.A.4 Ack of the advocate notice
5. Ex.A.5 original copy of reply letter dt.19-11-2012
6. Ex.A.6 Xth class Marks sheet of the petitioner

For O.P:

1. Ex.B.1  Directorate General of shipping’s grant of approval dt.22-12-10
2. Ex.B.2 Application form
3. Ex.B.3 Letter of indemnity dt.25-8-2012
4. Ex.B.4 Acceptance of the Rules and regulation signed by the complainant
5.  
6. Ex.B.5 Complainant’s admission declaration letter dt.25-8-2012
7. Ex.B.6 Doctors Certificates dt.25-8-2012
8. Ex.B.7 original copy of letter for cancellation of the blocked seat dt.25-8-12
9. Ex.B.8 lr.for cancellation of the seat dt.1-9-2012

                                                                                                President.