BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.12/2014 against C.C.No..128/2013, Dist. Forum-II,Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.
Between:
Sri Chaitanya Education Institution,
Rep. by its Principal, Guntupally,
Vijayawada, Rural Krishna Dist. …Appellant/
Opp.party
And
Master Y.Vineeth, 16 years, being Minor rep. by
and acting through his natural guardian and father
by name Sri Y.V.D.Prasad, R/o. C/o. P.Rambabu,
Opp. SBI Road, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada , Krishna District,
Being represented by Consumers’ Guidance Society,
Having its registered and administration office at
Flat No.1, 1st floor, D.No.58-1-26,
Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijaywada- 520 010. … Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.Manne Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondent : Notice served.
Rep. by Cons.Guidance Society
QUORUM: SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
This appeal is directed against the order dt.02.12.2013 of the District Forum-II, Vijaywada, Krishna Dist. made in C.C.No.128/2013 directing the appellant/opp.party to pay Rs.36,390/- to the complainant.
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.128/2013.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The respondent/complainant got admission into the intermediate course in NEON IC branch of opposite party coupled with hostel admission in the same campus of appellant/opp.party, after having satisfied with the representation made by the appellant/opp.party about the serving of salubrious and nutritious food. At that time, the people of the opposite party also assured the father of the complainant that six persons would be accommodated in each room of the hostel, apart from qualitative educational services. The respondent/complainant paid the total fees of Rs.39,390/- including the earlier booking fees of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent/complainant joined in the college hostel of opposite party on 13.06.2013 for attending the class work. But he was deeply distressed at the horrible and unhygienic food being served in the hostel and each room of the hostel crammed with 12 inmates. There is no hygienic sanitary conditions in the hostel and toilets, as such, the respondent/complainant departed from the college on 14.06.2013, under intimation to the appellant/opposite party. Thereafter, the father of the complainant requested the appellant/opposite party to refund the entire fees vide letter dt.21.06.2013. The appellant/opposite party refused to refund the fees amount on the alleged ground that fees once paid shall never be refunded, as per the rules. Hence the complaint.
The appellant/opposite party remained absent and he did not contest the case.
In order to prove his case, the respondent/complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
Upon hearing the complainant and his counsel and on consideration of the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly with a direction to the appellant/.opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.36,390/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/opposite party preferred this appeal .
The counsel for the appellant/opp.party submitted that notice issued by the District Forum was received by the sub staff, who have not informed and left the office and as such, the appellant could not appear and file version before the District Forum and as such, the District Forum passed an exparte order. That as per the terms and conditions of the admission, the complainant is not entitled to any amount, more than the refundable under the admission form, but suppressing it, the complainant filed the complaint and obtained exparte order, which is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We heard both sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant joined in Sri Chaitanya Education Institution, Vijayawada for intermediate in NEON IC branch and paid Rs.39,390/- on different dates as per Ex.A1 cash receipts. Ex.A2 letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party disclosed the payment of fees to the opposite party.
It is the case of the complainant that after having satisfied with the representations made by the people of the opposite party about serving of nutritious food and maintenance of hygienic conditions in the hostel, the complainant joined in the college hostel on 13.06.2013 for attending the class work. But he was deeply distressed at the horrible and unhygienic food being served in the hostel and each room of the hostel was packed with 12 inmates and there is no hygienic sanitary conditions in the hostel and toilets, as such, the complainant left the hostel on 14.06.2013 under intimation to the opposite party. Thereafter, the father of the complainant approached the opposite party for refund of the amount paid by the complainant and as the opposite party refused to refund the amount, the complainant got issued the legal notice under Ex.A3 and the opposite party received the same, but did not choose to give any reply.
The complainant filed his affidavit narrated the case as stated in the complaint. The contents of the evidence affidavit of the complainant are not controverted by the opposite party by filing any evidence affidavit. The evidence affidavit of the complainant coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 proved the case of the complainant. It is also proved that the complainant paid Rs.39,390/- including advance fees of Rs.5000/-. The said fact was admitted by the appellant/opposite party and it is also proved by Ex.B2 receipt filed along with the appeal. According to the complainant, he joined in the college on 13.06.2013 and as he was not satisfied with the hygienic conditions in the hostel, he left the college on 14.06.2013 itself i.e. within a span of one day. Further within one day, it is not possible to assess the discomforts in the college and the hostel particularly with regard to the hygienic food and sanitary conditions. The appellant/opposite party filed Ex.B1 application for admission into the hostel said to have given by the complainant to the institution, on the reverse of it, undertakings given by the students and their parents are given. But it is not signed either by student or his father. Therefore, the terms and conditions and undertakings mentioned on the reverse of Ex.B1 are not binding on the respondent/complainant. Therefore, basing on Ex.B1 application, the appellant/opposite party is not entitled to deduct any amount out of the total amount paid by the respondent/complainant. The District Forum has rightly held that the opposite party is entitled to withhold Rs.3,000/- towards processing charges/ administration charges.
For all the afore said facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the District Forum and we do not find any grounds, much less valid grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
In the result, appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Pm* Dt. 15.05.2014
