Date of Filing : 21.01.2011
Date of Order : 15.02.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.155/2013
MONDAY THIS 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
Selvi M.Shruthi Mithra,
C/o. Dr.S.Mahalingam
No.1, Kanagasabai Colony,
Ring Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai 600 107. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Secretary,
Madha Group of Academic Institutions,
No.1A, Chari Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
2. The Chairman,
Madha Group of Academic Institutions,
No.1A, Chari Street,
jNorth Usman Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
3. The Principal,
Madha Dental College,
Karathur,
Chennai 600 069. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : Party in person
For the Opposite parties : M/s. V. Manisekaran & other
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submits that she was allotted a seat in BDS course under the Government quota Selection Committee Government of Tamil Nadu in the opposite parties college namely Madha Dental College. Accordingly the complainant has joined the course in the said college and also paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a college fee towards the 1st year course to the opposite parties and also handed over the original certificates necessary for the joining of the said course and also attended the classes from 5.9.2008 to 24.09.2008. During the counseling complainant has paid Rs.2500/- towards tuition fee in advance as per the allotment procedure. Subsequently the complainant has received another counseling letter from the selection committee for selection of MBBS course. Accordingly the complainant had approached the opposite parties to return the original documents in order to appear before the selection committee. The complainant also selected for an admission of MBBS course at Meenakshi Medical College under the Management Quota. The opposite parties have returned the documents after struggle suffered by the complainant by getting necessary orders from the Additional Director of Medical Education/Secretary Selection Committee, Chennai. But the opposite parties have not returned the 1st year fee of Rs.75,000/- paid by the complainant despite of several demands made by the complainant. The opposite parties are not entitled to retain the said amount and they are liable to return the said amount since the complainant has discontinued. As such the act of the opposite parties is amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claim for refund of a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written version of opposite party in briefly is as follows:-
2. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The complaint itself is time barred and not filed in time as per 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, and the complainant has discontinued the BDS course after attending one month time i.e after admission period of the said course as such the said seat of the complainant in the said course could not be filled by new student and kept vacant for the entire period of the course i.e five years as such which caused monetary loss to the opposite parties in their institutions. Further the grandfather of the complainant who is representing the case before this forum for the complainant has received the original documents by acknowledging that no dues is pending for the complainant from the opposite parties on 05-11-2008 declaring that has no further arrear from our institutions. Further, since the said amount of Rs.75,000/- has been paid towards fees for academic year 2008-2009 and complainant having attended the one month class and discontinued the course the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the said fee. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed, as not maintainable.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
5. POINTS 1 & 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by opposite parties, the proof affidavits filed by both the parties and the documents Ex.A1 to A16 filed on the side of complainant and the documents Ex.B1 to B11 filed on the side of opposite parties and considered both side arguments.
6. It is pertinent to note that while the main CC was posted for arguments of the opposite parties, since the opposite parties’ counsel not come forward to argue the case despite of several adjournments, it is concluded that no arguments on the side of opposite parties and orders to that effect was passed on 17.12,2015. Subsequently the opposite parties’ counsel has filed CMP 45/2016 for reopen the case for argument and to permit to file documents. T he said CMP was heard and dismissed as not filed on valid ground no document along with this CMP on the side of petitioner/Opposite parties and separate order was also passed to that effect in the said CMP today. During the enquiry conducted in the said CMP the opposite parties’ counsel was permitted to put forth his arguments with regard to main CC also.
7. Considering the both sides case there is no dispute that the complainant was allotted a seat in BDS course under the Government quota selection committee Government of Tamil Nadu in the opposite parties college namely Madha Dental College. Accordingly the complainant has joined the course in the said college and also paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- as college fee towards the 1st year course to the opposite parties and also handed over the original certificates necessary for the joining of the said course and also attended the classes from 5.9.2008 to 24.09.2008. It is not disputed that during the counseling complainant has paid Rs.2500/- towards tuition fee in advance as per the allotment procedure. Subsequently the complainant has received another counseling letter from the selection committee for selection of MBBS course. Accordingly complainant had approached the opposite parties to return the original documents in order to appear before the selection committee. The complainant also selected for an admission of MBBS course at Meenakshi Medical College under the Management Quota.
8. The complainant’s main grievance in the complaint against the opposite parties is that the opposite parties have returned the documents after struggle suffered by the complainant by getting necessary orders from the Additional Director of Medical Education/Secretary Selection Committee, Chennai. But the opposite parties have not returned the 1st year fee of Rs.75,000/- paid by the complainant despite of several demands made by the complainant and his grand-father who is representing the complainant in the complaint. The opposite parties are not entitled to retain the said amount and they are liable to return the said amount since the complainant has discontinued the course at the earliest point of time i.e at the admission stage. As such the complainant has filed this complaint claiming the said amount with compensation and litigation charges.
9. Whereas the opposite parties have raised objection by stating that the complaint itself is time barred and not filed in time as per 24 A of the C.P. Act, and the complainant has discontinued the BDS course after attending one month time i.e after admission period of the said course as such the said seat of the complainant in the said course could not be filled by new student and kept vacant for the entire period of the course i.e five years as such which caused monetary loss to the opp. parties in their institutions. Further the grandfather of the complainant who is representing the case before this forum for the complainant has received the original documents by acknowledging that no dues is pending for the complainant from the opposite parties on 05-11-2008 declaring that has no further arrear from our institutions. Further, since the said amount of Rs.75,000/- has been paid towards fees for academic year 2008-2009 and complainant having attended the one month class and discontinued the course the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the said fee. Therefore the opposite parties has contended that the complaint has to be dismissed.
10. On perusal of the case records it is found that this case was originally filed with petition to condone delay of 44 days in filing this complaint under section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said application was dismissed by this forum by order dated 12-09-2011. Against which the complainant had preferred F.A. 514/2012 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, and the same was allowed by condoning the said delay and remanded back to this forum, to decide the case on merits. Therefore the opposite parties’ contention that the complaint is not filed in time and barred by limitation under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is not sustainable and liable to be rejected.
11. The opposite parties have contended that the grandfather of the complainant at the time of receiving original certificates of the complainant from the opposite parties’ intuitions have acknowledged that no due is pending from the opposite parties’ to the complainant, as per acknowledgement dated 05.11.2008. The said acknowledgement alleged to have been given by the complainant’s grandfather was categorically denied by him in this proceedings it is the burden on the side of opposite parties to prove the same. Whereas the opposite parties have not produced any proof of documents for the said acknowledgement given by the grandfather of the complainant.
12. Further the opposite parties contention that the complaint mentioned amount of Rs.75,000/- is not refundable since the complainant has already attended the class for one month and discontinued, which caused the said seat of the course as kept vacant for the entire period of course i.e five years, because it could not be filled up by other candidate since the admission of the course was closed at that moment. However the complainant has contended that at the time of complainant discontinued the said BDS course the admission was not closed and there are changes maintaining waiting list of candidates for admission, further the refusal of refund of the amount to the complainant in entirety is not proper as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the prospectus issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu admission to Medical / Dental 2008-2009 filed by the complainant as Ex.A15. In which it is mentioned in clause 10 under the head of tuition fee sub clause ( c) reads as follows:
Candidates selected in the seats offered by the Self Financing Institutions will have to remit a non-refundable sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.2500/- in case of SC/ST) by means of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai, at the time of counseling for allotment of seats. This will be adjusted towards the tuition fee that has to be paid to the colleges and the balance amount, if any, towards tuition fee has to be paid in the respective colleges at the time of joining the course. If the candidate does not pay this balance tuition fee on the stipulated date or if the candidate does not join the institution on the stipulated date mentioned in the allotment order he/she will forfeit the amount of Rs.5000/- or Rs.2500/-, as the case may be, paid at the time of counseling and the seat already allotted will automatically stand cancelled. Those candidates who discontinue the course will also forfeit the amount”.
As per the above condition it is acceptable that the complainant is not entitled to refund of Rs.2500/- paid before the selection committee and application fee of Rs.500/-. The complainant has also not claimed the said amount in the complaint.
13. Further the complainant also referred the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, rendered in Revision Petition No.4489/2013, dated 07.08.2013 in the case of
The Registrar, Shanmuga Arts and Science Technology, Thanjavur
–Vs-
The Consumer Protection Council, Tamilnadu, Trichy and others
in support of the complainants contention even on the contention of the opposite parties, since the complainant has attended one month class of the said course and discontinued, complainant may be denied refund of the fee paid in entirety but liable to refund a portion of the said amount as per the Public notice issued in the year 2007 by the University Grant Commission as mentioned in the above Judgment.
14. In the present case though the opp. parties have contended that seat of the said course which was discontinued by the complainant was kept vacant and was caused monetary loss to the opposite parties, the opposite parties have not produced relevant document to establish that they could not fill-up the said seat and kept vacant, and the admission of the said course was closed at the time. Therefore the opposite parties contention that due to discontinuity of the course of the complainant, it has caused monetary loss to the opposite parties is not proved by the opposite parties by production of necessary documents. Further as per the above, the condition mentioned in Public Notice issued by University Grant Commission in the year 2007, since the complainant has discontinued the course after attending 1 month class, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to refund the said fee of Rs.75,000/- collected from the complainant after deducting a portion of fee for a term i.e half of the amount a sum of Rs.37,500/- will be justifiable. Contra to this the attitude of the opposite parties for refusing to refund the appropriate amount as mentioned above despite of several demands made by the complainant is amounts to deficiency of service as such which caused mental agony and hardship to complainant are all acceptable. Therefore apart from refund of Rs.37,500/- the opposite parties are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. As such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.37,500/- (Rupees Thirty Seven thousand and five hundred only) as refund, and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above said amounts (Rs.37,500+15,000/-) will also carry interest @ of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment and accordingly this complaint against the 1st opposite party is dismissed.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 15th day of February 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- Dec 2000 - Copy of Medical Certificate for by-pass surgery of complainant
Guardian.
Ex.A2- 10.4.2007 - Copy of Medical Certificate for third surgery undergone by
Complainant’s guardian.
Ex.A3- 14.8.2008 - Copy of B.D.S. sent allotment for complainant.
Ex.A4- 14.8.2008 - Copy of Fees Receipt for Tuition fee issued by
Selection Committee.
Ex.A5- 19.8.2008 - Copy of Demand Draft for Rs.75,000/- in favour of opposite
Party.
Ex.A6- 20.8.2008 - Copy of Guardian’s letter to opposite party with D.D and other
Certificate.
Ex.A7- 20.8.2008 - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party.
Ex.A8- 27.9.2008 - Copy of complainant’s letter to opposite party enclosing
Admission card for BDS course.
Ex.A9- 10.10.2008 - Copy of complainant’s letter to opposite party.
Ex.A10- 14.10.2008- Copy of reply from opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A11- 21.10.2008 – Copy of complainant’s guardian letter to Director of
Medical Education for release of Original certificate by
opposite party.
Ex.A12- 3.11.2008 - Copy of opposite party’s letter to Guardian.
Ex.A13- 26.11.2008- Copy of opposite party’s letter to Guardian.
Ex.A14- 4.12.2008 - Copy of opposite party’s letter to Guardian refusing
To refund the fees.
Ex.A15- - - Copy of prospectus for Medical and Dental Courses.
Ex.A16- 5.9.2008 - Copy of receipt for application issued by opposite party.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- 5.3.2009 - Copy of Appointment order for Dr.P.K.Saraswathy.
Ex.B2- 6.3.2008 - Copy of Joining report of Dr.P.K.Saraswathy.
Ex.B3- 1.1.2009 - Copy of Promotion order to Dr.P.K.Saraswathy.
Ex.B4- 23.9.2009 - Copy of promotion order to Dr.P.K.Saraswathy.
Ex.B5- 23.9.2009 - Copy of appointment order for Dr.P.R.Mahendra Raj.
Ex.B6- 23.9.2009 - Copy of joining report of Dr.R.R.Mahendra Raj.
Ex.B7- 21.5.2012 - Copy of appointment order for Dr.C.Karunanidhi.
Ex.B8- 21.5.2012 - Copy of joining report of Dr.C.Karunanidhi.
Ex.B9- 18.7.2012 - Copy of promotion order for Dr.C.Karunanidhi as principal.
Ex.B10- 18.7.2012 – Copy of joining report of Dr.C.Karunanidhi as principal.
Ex.B11- 16.8.2012 - Copy of intimation to Dr.M.G.R. Medical University.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
