FA No.249/2007 against CD.No.260/2004 District Consumer Forum-II, Krishna District at Vijayawada.

Between:

The Secretary,

Siddhardha Academy of General and Technical Education,

Vijayawada.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

Jasti Gangadhara Rao,

S/o.Rama Chandra Rao,

R/o.Qr.No.128-D, Sector – VI,

Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant            : Mr.C.Kodandaram.

Counsel for the Respondent        : Mr.G.Narasimha Rao.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND,MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

******* 

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum directing it to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum besides compensation and costs.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he admitted his daughter J.Pridhvi in Electronics and Communication Engineering under management quota in the appellant college on the assurance of appellant college promising to refund the entire amount of Rs.2,50,000/- if it could not provide seat in E.C.E.  On the above assurance, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.06.2001 by way of three pay orders viz i) for Rs.40,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Vijayawada – 2 bearing No.135846, ii) for Rs.40,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Vijayawada – 2,  bearing No.135847, iii) for Rs.20,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Vijayawada – 2 bearing No.135848, besides Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 2 bearing pay order No.193634  and on 09.07.2001 Rs.50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada, bearing pay order No.079082.  The said pay orders were encashed.  However, the complainant’s daughter secured seat in another engineering college and as such the complainant demanded the amount paid by him.  However, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded.  It alleged that Rs.1,50,000/- was paid towards donation and it need not refund.  The complainant alleges that in fact he paid the amount towards admission fee.  Therefore, he claimed Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.         The appellant resisted the case.  It alleged that the appellant institution was registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860.  It started engineering college with various branches of engineering.  When the complainant approached for a seat for his daughter for admission in Information Technology,  a seat was provided for her on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and he was informed that the classes would be commenced on 29.10.2001.  However, the complainant sought for refund of the amount on the ground that his daughter had secured seat in some other college.  On that, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded.  The allegation of the complainant that he paid Rs.1,50,000/- is not true.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit and that of one Velagapudi Ramakrishna and got Exs.A.1 to A.13.  Refuting their evidence, the opposite party filed affidavit evidence of the Secretary of the Institution and got Exs.B.1 to B.5.  The Branch Manager filed Exs.C.1 to C.4 in order to prove that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed by the complainant, was in fact deposited by two persons viz. V.Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that refund of the amount sought by the complainant was paid towards fee and not towards donation as alleged by the institution.  Accordingly, the opposite party was directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that the complainant never alleged that he paid the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through V.Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan.  The complainant belatedly took such a plea, though it was not made in the complaint.  In fact the appellant could prove that the amounts were deposited towards donation.  The persons who had taken Demand Drafts from the respective banks had received exemption certificates under Sec.80g of Income Tax Act.  Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum.

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the District Forum had erred in appreciating the facts in correct perspective and therefore, liable to be set aside?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s daughter had taken admission in the appellant’s college in Electronics and Communication  branch of Engineering on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.  When she got a seat in another college, the amount that was paid towards her admission was refunded to her father. 

9.         Now the complainant pleads that in fact he had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- and out of which he was paid Rs.1,00.000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is liable to be refunded to him.  The appellant contends that this amount was not paid by the complainant; and in fact the said amount was paid by V. Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan towards donation.  Since this amount was donated by third parties, the complainant was not entitled to the said amount.

10.       Though the complainant in his complaint alleged that he had paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards seat, he did not allege that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which he sought refund, was infact paid by him, though styled it as donation given by his relations V.Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan.  At the time of evidence, he filed affidavit evidence of one V.Ramakrishna.  He stated that he is the brother of the co-brother of the complainant and that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on different dates for admission of his daughter in the appellant’s Institution.  The Xerox copy of the receipt in his name filed by the opposite party was created and fabricated.  In fact he did not donate the said amount nor he has any necessity to donate such a huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/ The complainant did not choose to file the affidavit evidence of the other person, V.V.S.R.Mohan. 

11.       We may mention herein that the complainant when he sought for refund of Rs.2,50,000/- from the appellant institution by way of letter Ex.A.6 dated 09.02.2002 he categorically stated that he paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards admission of his daughter in the college.  For the first time when the institution alleged that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which the complainant referred to, was in fact donated by V.Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan, the complainant alleged that he paid the amount though it was shown “that it was paid by two persons by way of donations”.

12.       The college in proof of the claim filed affidavit of the Secretary.  It has also examined Sri B.Chandra Mohan, Asst. Manager of Andhra Bank.  He produced Xerox copies of pay order and the application form which was submitted by V.Ramakrishna, marked as Exs. C.1 and C.2.  He has also examined Sri G.Venkata Rao, Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad wherein V.V.S.R.Mohan purchased D.D. for Rs.50,000/- towards donation evidenced under Ex.C.4.  Ex.C.1 and C.4 contain the signature of the donors V.Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan. Except a fleeting plea by V.Ramakrishna that his signature was forged, no explanation whatsoever was given as to why he was pitched upon.  It was filed by the Manager of the Bank.  No cross-examination was made to discredit their testimony.  In fact, this contention was obviously taken to get over the signatures on Ex.C.1 and C.4.  The donations evoke exemption under Sec.80G of Income Tax Act for the donation given to the institute.  It is not known whether they had taken benefit of deposit from Income Tax Department.    

13.       At any rate, the complainant could not prove firstly that he paid this amount or that those amounts were paid by them on his behalf and that he was entitled to the amount. If really the amounts were paid towards donation, the complainant cannot recover the said amount.  When the institution could prove these amounts were deposited by the respective persons towards donation, the complainant on their behalf cannot claim the said amount.  It is altogether different had V. Ramakrishna and V.V.S.R.Mohan filed complaints alleging that they paid the amounts towards tution fee but the institution in order to appropriate illegally shown it as donations.  At any rate, the complainant cannot recover the amounts paid by third parties on the ground that they were paid on his behalf.  It is not his case even in the complaint.  The District Forum did not consider this aspect of the matter at any stage of the proceedings. The irrefutable evidence let in by the institution by examining respective Branch Managers together with Exs.C.1 to C.4 could establish beyond doubt that the complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed. 

14.       In the result, the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.  However,  in the circumstances, no costs.

PRESIDENT  

MEMBER  

MEMBER

Dt:01.06.2009.