| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. FA No. 174 OF 2017 AGAINST CC No.1 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-MEDAK Between : GITAM University (estd. U/S. 3 of UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad Campus, Rudram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District – 502329 Telangana, rep. by its Resident Director. …Appellant / Opposite Party AND K.S.Arvinda Krishna, S/o. Kapisthalam Santhanam, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No.12-2-826/B/26, Vivekananda Colony, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad – 500028. ....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite Party : M/s. C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant : Sri M.Sivananda Kumar Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President & Hon’ble Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member Wednesday the Fourth day of April Two thousand Eighteen Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member). *** The Appellant University before us is the Opposite Party and the Respondent is the Complainant in C.C.No.01/2016 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy District (for brevity, ‘the District Forum’). By the Order dated 07.03.2017 the District Forum directed the Appellant University to return the Respondent the Cash Deposit of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of vacating the hostel by his children and also compensation of Rs.40,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint. - The factual matrix, as set up by the Complainant before the District Forum, in brief, is that he had admitted his son, Mr. K.Sushanth and daughter Ms.K.Sanjana in the campus of the Opposite party University for a 4 years course in EIE. They stayed in the University Hostel for the first 3 years and owing to the Complainant’s financial difficulties left the hostel and continued to pursue their studies as day scholars. The further case of the Complainant is that at the time of joining his children in the hostel he had made payments of Rs.40,000/- towards cash deposit and Rs.1,000/- towards Application Fee for each student and that on vacating it, the Opposite party University, instead of returning entire cash deposit, sent only two cheques of Rs.6,101/-, regarding his son and Rs.12,392/-, regarding his daughter. Even after making enquires by the Complainant, there was no response from the Opposite party University and that as such he returned back the said cheques to the Opposite party University by Speed Post. With these allegations, the Complainant sought refund of the total cash deposit of Rs.80,000/- with interest and costs, by way of filing the Complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act).
- The Opposite party University resisted the claim on the grounds, interalia, that it was not maintainable as the Complainant cannot be treated as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Act, 1986. Further, as per the Financial Rules & Regulations of the Hostel the sum of Rs.30,000/- is non refundable and only Rs.10,000/- is refundable and that the Complainant and his children had signed the Declaration Form undertaking to abide by the said Rules & Regulations, at the time of seeking admission in the hostel. However, after deducting the damages in the room and Mess arrears the balance amount was returned to the complainant through two cheques of Rs.12,392/- and Rs.6,101/- respectively. The Opposite party University has also contended that by suppressing these material facts the Complaint was filed by abusing due process of law and that as such it sought dismissal of it with costs.
- After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum passed the Order, stated in para No.1 supra, which is now impugned in the present Appeal.
- The contention of the Opposite party University in the Appeal under Section-15 of the Act, 1986, in brief, is that the District forum did not consider the aspect of jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint and also failed to look into the documentary evidence of the parties in a right perspective, more particularly refundable and non-refundable clauses with regard to the deposit amounts contained in the Declaration Form but, passed the Order arbitrarily and illegally and that as such the same is liable to be set aside.
- Perused the material evidence placed on record and the written arguments of both the parties. Heard, their learned counsel.
- Now the points for consideration are that:
- whether the claim is maintainable under the provisions of the Act, 1896?
- whether the impugned Order is unjust, erroneous and illegal, both in the eye of law and on facts, and that as such liable to be set aside?
10. Point No.I :- It is to be noted that as per Section-2 (1)(b)of the Act, 1986 ‘complainant’ means, a ‘consumer’ (one or more consumers) or any voluntary consumer association duly registered or the Central Government or any State Government. But in the present case, the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ in the sense that he did not avail any services personally from the Opposite Party University as defined under Section-2(1) ( c) (iii) of the Act, 1986. Even assuming that he had availed such services for his son and daughter, the fact remains that evidently both of them had already attained age of majority well prior to the date of filing of the complaint. Further, he did not file the present complaint, as their Power of Attorney, on their behalf. There is also no explanation as to why his children were unable to file such a complaint. Thus, when we scrutinize the complaint on the touch stone of the Act, 1986, we have no hesitation to hold that the same is not maintainable as the complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the said Act. 11. It is further to be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 17.01.2014 in Civil Appeal No.697/2014, between “the Indian Institute of Bank and Finance (IIBF) Vs.Mukul Sri Vastava” And “SLP No.22532/2012 P.T.Kashya & another Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Others”, held that education is not a commodity and that Educational Institutions are not providing any sort of services, therefore, in the matter of Admission Fees etc., there cannot be any question of deficiency in service. Therefore, it was ruled that such matters cannot be entertained by the fora under the provisions of the Act, 1986. However, the aggrieved party is at liberty to seek his grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per Law. These decisions were followed by this Commission in F.A.No.162/2017, between the Director, FIIT-JEE, Hyderabad AND K.Udaya Geetha and F.A.279/2016, between M/s.FIIT JEE Limited & another AND Ashish K.James. Inview of this legal fiction, we hold that the complaint has no legs to stand. The point is thus answered against the Complainant. - .Point No.II :- Now coming to factual aspect of the matter, it is pertinent to note that at the time of seeking admission in the hostel the Complainant and his two children had signed the Declaration and undertook to abide by the Financial Rules and Regulations of the Opposite Party University Hostel. The material Rules, for the beneficial use, are extracted below:-
- Each student should pay Rs.40,000/-(Rs.47,500/- in case of ECE 5 and MECH 5) at the time of joining the hostel out of which Rs.30,000/- (Rs.47,500/- in case of ECE 5 and MECH 5) is non-refundable and Rs.10,000/- is refundable which is paid back at the time of vacating the Hostel. However, if any student wants to vacate the hostel due to the health reasons or homesickness in the first year of joining the hostel on or before September 2011, Rs,7,500/- will be deducted from non-refundable amount and remaining amount will be paid to the student. No part of non-refundable amount shall be paid to those students who vacate the hostel after September,2011.
- XXX XXX XXX XXX
- XXX XXX XXX XXX
- XXX XXX XXX XXX
- Caution deposit is not adjustable to any monthly bill. This will be adjusted or refunded at the time of vacating the hostel.
- XXX XXX XXX XXX
- XXX XXX XXX XXX
Ex.B1 is a copy of the said Rules and Regulations bearing the signatures of both the students and their father i.e., the Complainant. This document also contains list of the furniture provided to each student in the hostel room. - . It is further to be noted that Ex.B2, which is a document containing copies of hostel vacating letters dated 28.04.2014, shows the particulars of the damages of the articles and other dues of Rs.33,899/- in case of son of the Complainant and Rs.27,608/- in case of daughter of the Complainant. Accordingly the balance of the amount of Rs.6,101/- with regard to the son and Rs.12,392/- with regard to the daughter of the Complainant was refunded by way of two cheques to the Complainant. Ex.B3 contains copies of said cheques. Ex.B2 is also enclosed with a copy of the payment voucher dated 20.06.2014. But, the Complainant has suppressed these material facts in his complaint, for no valid reason. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the same is fatal to his case.
- We have given careful consideration to the Order under Appeal. The learned District Forum has opined in Para No.6 of it that the Opposite Party University has returned the sum of Rs.12,392/- and Rs.6,101/- to the complainant without any details and that in Para No.7 has observed
that the Opposite Party University had benefited greatly by collecting the cash deposit and enjoyed handsome interest on it for 4 years and that the deductions, if any, had to be made only when student was responsible for such damages. In our opinion, these observations are erroneous. Because the Opposite Party University has furnished details of the deductions in Ex.B2 and that payment of cash deposit was subject to the terms and conditions of the Financial Rules and Regulations vide Ex.B1. Thus the parties are bound by the contract and it’s terms can not be altered or modified by a Fora. Therefore, in the given circumstance, a student has to be held responsible for any damage in the hostel room of his/her occupation and none other. Thus, in our opinion, the aforesaid findings are against the material evidence placed on record and that as such not sustainable in the eye of law. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Order under Appeal certainly warrants interference. - The point is answered accordingly.
- In view of the conclusions arrived at Point Nos.1 & 2 we hold that the Appeal is fit to be allowed by setting aside the impugned Order.
- In the result, the impugned Order is set aside by allowing the Appeal and consequently the Complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. However, the aggrieved party is at liberty to approach proper Forum / Civil Court for redressal, if so advised, by claiming exemption of the period covered by the present litigation inaccordance with Section-14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.04.04.2018 | |
