Karnataka

StateCommission

A/4654/2010

Rajarajeshwari College of Nursing - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jacob A Punnose - Opp.Party(s)

Chandrakanth R Goulay

03 Oct 2023

ORDER

 Date of Filing: 11.11.2010

                                                                Date of Disposal: 03.10.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:03.10.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr KRISHNAMURTHY BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.4654/2010

 

 

Rajarajeshwari College of Nursing

No.14, Ramohalli Cross

Mysore Road

Kumbalgodu

Bengaluru -560 074      

By its Executive Officer                                                         Appellant

(By Mr Chandrakanth R Goulay, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

1. Sri Jacob A Punnoose

    S/o Sri Chacko Punnoose

    Aged about 49 years

 

2. Sri Arul Jacob

    S/o Sri Jacob A Punnoose

    Aged about 22 years

 

    Both residing at Ancheril Panoor

    SH Mount Post Office

    Kottayam-686 006

    Kerala State

   (By Mr B N Jayadeva, Advocate

    For R1 & R2)

 

3. The Rajiv Gandhi University

    4^th Block, Jayanagar

    Bengaluru-560 041

    Rep. by its Registrar

    (By Mr Ashok N Nayak, Advocate)

 

4. The Government of Karnataka

    Represented by its Secretary H & F W

    Medical Education Department

    M S Building

    Bengaluru -560 001                                                   Respondents

    (By Mr H K Basavaraj, Advocate)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP1 aggrieved by the Order dated 09.09.2010 passed in Complaint No.1585/2008 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsel for Respondents. None appeared for Appellant.  Taking into consideration of the vintage of the matter, taken up to decide the case on merits.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP1-Rajajeswari College of Nursing is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- to the Complainants, within 60 days from the date of the Order.  In the event of non-compliance of the Order within 60 days, the amount carries interest @ 9% p.a from the Date of the Order till refund/realisation. Further ordered Complainants are entitled Rs.2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from OP-1.  The District Forum Dismissed the Complaint as against OPs 2 & 3.

 4.      Aggrieved by this Order, OP1 is in Appeal inter-alia, contending amongst other grounds that, in the absence of proving specific claim for payment of amount and in proof thereof, there is no justification to make an order of payment of amount.  The amount collected is admittedly towards balance of tuition fees which the student was obligated to pay and it is legal & entitled to be received by the college.  It cannot be termed as unfair trade practice or illegal and without Authority of law as held.   All other facts or related discussion would not enable the Forum to grant the relief now granted.   This is wrong approach made leading to a wrong decision. Further he pleaded that the college did and possesses necessary permission from the concerned Authority to run the college.   The finding that the college could not have admitted students for the year 2007-08 is without any basis and without proper application of mind with reference to the admitted facts as mentioned in reply.   When the Forum has accepted all the facts in favour of this Appellant, it is not known as to how the present relief of refund of fees could be granted and more particularly when the relief of return of fees in a sum of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.26,000/- is refused by the Forum.   Admittedly, the complainant has voluntarily given up the course and for the reasons best known to him.   Further pleaded that the claim Petition itself was not maintainable and the District Forum has not competence or jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the relief sought for would not come within the definition and meaning of consumer under the Act.   Hence, the order is unsustainable in law and thus seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeal.

 

5.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and records of District Forum.

6.       It is  the case of the complainants that 2^nd Complainant/Respondent No.2 herein got admitted to the OP1/Appellant’s Institution for B.Sc Nursing course during the academic year 2006-07, in the month of September 2006, with a great hope of successfully completing the course, paid Rs.60,000/- as Tuition Fee and another sum of Rs.26,000/- as Caution Deposit.  The allegation of the Complainants is that the senior students committed ragging on complainant No.2 on 31.10.2006 and he had underwent lot of mental tension besides getting bodily injured and a Police Complaint was given to Kengeri Police Station and who had registered a case vide Crime No.173/2007 for the offenses punishable under Section 143, 149, 323, 506 of IPC and 116(1) and (2) of Karnataka Education Act 1983.  Because of ragging in the month of October 2006, i.e., within 1½ months of the start of academic year 2006-07, since the 2^nd Complainant had to underwent treatment for his injuries, he decided to dis-continue his studies in OP1’s Institution and wanted to get admitted in another College and asked the OP1 to return the original documents viz., Marks Card and Certificates submitted by him at the time of his taking up the admission. It is observed that OP1’s Institution without giving any type of Service or imparted Education to the Complainant collected a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 07.11.2006 for returning of the original documents to the student/Complainant No.2.  Further, the Complainant alleges that he had paid another sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as Capitation Fee

7.       The stand taken by OP1 that he had admitted that Complainant No.2 has been admitted to B.Sc Nursing Course for the academic year 2006-07 and paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards Tuition Fee and Rs.26,000/- as Caution Deposit.  Further he admitted that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was collected towards balance of fee payable by the student.  OP1 denied the contention of the Complainant that he paid the sum of Rs.1,20,000/-  as Capitation fee and took a stand that there is no need or occasion to demand money towards donation and the seat vacated was not filled up by another student and the college is not responsible for any trauma, mental agony and hardship alleged to have been suffered by the student. 

While OP2 taken a stand that OP1 College is affiliated to the University of OP2 is not disputed and it has nothing to do with the Complaint and allegations made thereon.  OP3 was placed ex-parte before the District Forum since none represented him in the case.

8.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 9 of its impugned order that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.1124/2006 decided on 19.04.2007 directing the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to direct 27 nursing colleges not to admit students for the year 2007-08 and to inform that any admission made for the year 2007-08 will not be approved by the University.   So under the circumstances, the OP No.1 College being under 27 colleges of unsatisfactory list of colleges was not authorised to admit students to the academic year of 2007-08.  Admittedly, OP1 has collected Rs.1,25,000/-  from the complainants on 07.11.2006.  That means it is for the academic year 2007-08.   The collection of amount was unauthorised one.  Therefore, OP1 institution is bound to refund Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainants.

9.       Perusal of the record reveals that the Complainants have not produced any receipt nor any document to prove their case to the effect that they have paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as Capitation Fee or Donation.  Further, OP1 has also not produced any document to show that payment of Rs.1,25,000/- was received from the Complainants towards balance of Tuition Fee.  Thus the complainants have proved that they have paid Rs.1,25,000/- on 07.11.2006 as demanded by OP1. Per contra, OP1 miserably failed to counter the same. Further OP1 has not produced any document to substantiate his contention that the seat surrendered by the Complainant No.2 had remained vacant throughout the Academic Year.   The alleged act of OP1 in demanding and receiving an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- for return of original documents of Complainant No.2 amounts to deficiency in service. 

10.     In view of foregoing observations, the Impugned Order directing OP1 to refund Rs.1,25,000/- to the Complainant from the Date of the order and in the event of non-compliance of the Order within the stipulated 60 days,  the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the Date of Order and awarding Litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant and Dismissal of Complaint as against OPs 2 & 3 is just and proper and there are no strong reasons has been brought before us to interfere with the same.   Accordingly, Appeal is Dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.     The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

12.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                  Judicial Member                        President

*s