BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1694/2005 AGAINST C.D.No.1514/2003 DISTRICT FORUM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
Between-
1. Al-Ameer College of Engineering and Information
Technology, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent,
Gudilova, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam-531 173.
2. M.K.Ali Pasha, S/o. , Administrative Officer,
Al-Ameer College of Engineering and Information
Technology, Gudilova, Anandapuram,
Visakhapatnam-531 173.
3. Mohammed Vaziruddin Educational Society,
75-6-12, Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry-533 103.
East Godavari District. ..Appellants/Opposite parties.
And
Kum.L.Venkata Satya Uma Lavanya,
D/o.Dr.L.Aruna, age 21 years,
R/o.D.No.43-11-6/A, Subbalakshminagar,
Visakhapatnam-530 016. Respondent/Complainant..
Counsel for the Appellants- Mr.Ravi Cheemalapati.
For the Respondent-served.
QUORUM-THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order-(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble MEMBER)
---
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.1514/2003 on the file of District Forum, Visakhapatnam, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant’s father lured by the advertisement given by the opposite parties in Eenadu and Hindu admitted the complainant in first year Bio-technology degree course under NRI and Management quota as she has qualified in EAMCET. In the advertisement given by the opposite parties, it is mentioned that the said course is recognized by AICTE and the college is affiliated to JNTU. The complainant paid Rs.59,500/- as fees for 1st year course in addition to the amount of Rs.6,700/- collected towards other fees and thus in all the opposite parties collected Rs.66,200/- but opposite party has given receipt for Rs.6,700/- only and did not give receipt for Rs.59,500/-. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party mislead the complainant and her father and collected the amounts knowing fully well that they could not get affiliation from JNTU. The students of the opposite party college were not allowed to sit for the examination while other college students got their hall tickets, the complainant and other students of the opposite party college did not get hall tickets even on the date of commencement of the examination on 21-4-2003 and thus the complainant and other students were denied to sit for the examination and the complainant became sick and collapsed due to shock. The parents of the students including that of the complainant approached 1st and 2nd opposite parties to find the fate of their children but opposite parties avoided them and then the complainant and others realized that they were cheated and lost their valuable career. The complainant got issued a lawyer’s notice along with other students calling upon the opposite parties to get affiliation and see that the academic year is not lost but opposite parties remained silent and therefore the complainant had taken refund of her certificates. Hence the complaint for a direction to opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs.66,200/- collected by them, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of one valuable academic year, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and interest at 18 percent on the above amounts i.e. Rs.3,16,200/- till the date of payment.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter, which was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3 admitted the admission of complainant into bio-technology course but denied the allegation of cheating and unfair trade practice and also collecting Rs.59,500/-. The opposite parties asserted that in the advertisement itself, they have clearly mentioned with asterick mark that bio-technology course is being granted by Andhra Pradesh High Court order and they have not suppressed anything. Not only the complainant but also 12 more candidates joined in bio-technology degree course under management quota and when the EAMCET Convener did not provide candidates, they approached High Court of Andhra Pradesh and fought for non issuance of affiliation and for recognition. They also submitted that the complainant and some other students also filed writ petitions, finally by virtue of High Court order, the students continued the 2nd year course and meanwhile their college got affiliation and recognition but the complainant without waiting for the result and affiliation withdrew from the college and insisted for return of the certificates and assured to pay the 2nd year academic fee and had taken the certificates and later got issued a notice and filed the complaint. They submitted that they had never cheated the complainant or any other student and infact they fought for the benefit of the students, who have been admitted into bio-technology course by spending huge amounts with a sole intention to safeguard their career. They further submitted that the complainant’s father voluntarily made his daughter with drew from the course and joined her in another course (BPT) and if at all any loss is there, it was because of the complainant’s attitude and not because of opposite party. They also submitted that only Rs.6,700/- was collected towards fee and other amounts were collected from the complainant and filed the brochure and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and B1 to B14 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs and directed to pay the above amounts within two months from the date of order, failing which, directed to pay interest at 9 percent p.a. on the amounts granted from 1-9-2005 till realization.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Forum erred in partly allowing the claim of the respondent/complainant as in the order passed by them, the entire discussion was made against the respondent/complainant and found that she wanted to discontinue the course on her own as she got admission in BPT. He also submitted that the allegation of the respondent/complainant that the management of the appellants was not able to get the required approval or affiliation is false and because of wrong apprehension the respondent’s father got the respondent to withdraw from the college voluntarily. He further submitted that the District Forum erred in allowing the complaint in part when it has not accepted the claim for refund of tuition fee amount as the respondent completed the full academic year. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the advertisement itself, they had stated pending affiliation and therefore, they did not suppress the aspect of affiliation prior to the respondent/complainant’s admission.
We have gone through the material on record. It is not in dispute that the respondent joined the appellants’ college under management quota. The appellant contended that the respondent did not pay Rs.59,500/- as stated by her in her affidavit and that the entire course fee is Rs.2,24,500/-. We are of the view that the District Forum has rightly inferred from Exs.A8 and A9 that Rs.59,500/- was paid towards first year course fee for the academic year 2002-2003 and A9 also certifies the student as a bonafide student of the college. The contention of the appellant that no fee was paid apart from Rs.6,700/- is unsustainable on the ground that the respondent/complainant would not be allowed to study the first year course and also allowed to apply for the first year examination, if she had not paid the fees. The record does not show any letter addressed by the appellants to the respondent that any of the fees is pending to be paid, hence we do not see any reason to disagree with the observation made by the District Forum. The second contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that admissions were made subject to affiliation and also subject to the result of the court litigation and that the students are in knowledge about the non approval by A.P.State Council for Higher Education. It is not in dispute that the student did not get the hall ticket to sit for the examination and the mental agony that the student would have gone through in the fear of losing an academic year cannot be undermined. The very act of the appellant in admitting the student in the course without proper affiliation amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and we do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER. MALE MEMBER
JM Dated 22 February, 2008.
