BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.FA No.861/2008 against CC.No.76/2006 District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy.
Between:
The Chairman/Correspondent,
Spoorthy Engg. College, Nadargul,
Saroornagar, RR District.
…Appellant/O.P.No.1.
And
1.S.Sudhendra S/o.Sri S.Rajender,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.Raghavendra Nilayam, Balaji Colony,
Mohan Nagar, RR Dist.
Rep. by his father and natural guardian,
Sri S.Rajender, S/o.late Sri S.Raghavender Rao,
Aged about 47 years, Occ: Lecturer,
R/o.Raghavendra Nilayam, Balaji Colony,
Mohan Nagar, RR Dist.
…R.1/Complainant.
2.The Secretary, A.P.State Council of Higher Education,
Saifabad, Hyderabad.
3.The Registrar, J.N.T.University,
Masabtank Road, Hyderabad.
4.The Director of Technical Education,
BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road,
Hyderabad.
…R.2 to R.4/O.Ps.2 to 4.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.M.Hariprasada Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.Stage.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,
AND
SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
1. The 1st opposite party preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy District, dt.11.06.2008 in CC.No.76/2006 directing him to refund Rs.66,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he secured admission in the college of the appellant/opposite party No.1 in B.Tech., Mechanical on payment of Rs.66,000/- towards tution fee for the period 2005-2008. Later he was able to secure seat in another college in the same subject. On that, his father demanded refund amount of Rs.66,000/- which was deposited towards tution fee, but the same was not returned. However, the transfer certificate, etc. were returned. In all an amount of Rs.94,600/- including remaining three years tution fee, etc. was collected. Since he did not pursue his education he was entitled to the amount with interest at 24% per annum together with damages of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3. The appellant resisted the complaint alleging that the college is managed on “No grant-in-id” basis. The student, who seeks admission, is deemed to have agreed to the rules and regulations of the institution. The complainant having secured admission in B.Tech (Mechanical Branch) joined on 25.10.2004 paying Rs.22,500/- at EAMCET counseling, besides Rs.6,300/- towards fees and deposits as mentioned in the brochure. After some time he sought for return of his certificates on the ground that he secured seat in Vasavi College of Education and also requested for return of the amount. Since, admissions in all engineering colleges were completed, they were not liable to return the amount. However, they have returned the certificates. In fact, the Convenor has issued a notification in Eenadu about the filling up of seats. He should have followed the said notification. The candidate is not entitled to any of the amounts. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.10, while the opposite party filed affidavit of one S.Jagan Mohan Reddy and documents Exs.B.1 to B.8.
5. After considering the evidence placed on record the District Forum opined that the college having closed the Mechanical Branch for which the complainant was admitted, the complainant could not be said to be at fault, when he sought seat in another college. Necessarily, the appellant had to refund the amount which he had paid. No compensation whatsoever was awarded for mental agony, etc.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the college preferred this appeal contending that by virtue of terms of agreement, marked as Ex.B.3, they were not liable to refund the amount paid towards tution fee.
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant having secured seat in appellants college in B.Tech (Mechanical Branch) paid Rs.66,000/- towards tution fee and other deposits. It is also not in dispute that the college has closed the Mechanical Branch, in their college, from the academic year 2005-2006. When they have closed the Mechanical Branch, they cannot say that they have rendered some service to the student, for the fee, that was collected from him. When the college has closed Mechanical Branch in which the complainant was admitted, it cannot turn round and say that the student has no concern with the closing of the Branch during the academic year. The Director of the appellant college in his affidavit stated that the complainant was not concerned with the closing of the Mechanical Branch in their college, as they closed the said Branch during the academic year 2005-2006. We wonder, if not the student, who else would be concerned. It is his education and he should be necessarily concerned with the closure of the branch. The student has no other go except to join in some other college where there is mechanical branch. The brochure does not mention as to what should be done in such contingencies. It is he, who intended to pursue education; and when the college took him to impart education for a particular Branch, and it having closed the same, they cannot retain the student nor the fee. It cannot be said that by virtue of terms and conditions of the agreement they were not liable to pay. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard. There are no merits in the appeal.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt:26.08.2008.
Vvr.
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.FA No.861/2008 against CC.No.76/2006 District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy.
Between:
The Chairman/Correspondent,
Spoorthy Engg. College, Nadargul,
Saroornagar, RR District.
…Appellant/O.P.No.1.
And
1.S.Sudhendra S/o.Sri S.Rajender,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.Raghavendra Nilayam, Balaji Colony,
Mohan Nagar, RR Dist.
Rep. by his father and natural guardian,
Sri S.Rajender, S/o.late Sri S.Raghavender Rao,
Aged about 47 years, Occ: Lecturer,
R/o.Raghavendra Nilayam, Balaji Colony,
Mohan Nagar, RR Dist.
…R.1/Complainant.
2.The Secretary, A.P.State Council of Higher Education,
Saifabad, Hyderabad.
3.The Registrar, J.N.T.University,
Masabtank Road, Hyderabad.
4.The Director of Technical Education,
BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road,
Hyderabad.
…R.2 to R.4/O.Ps.2 to 4.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.M.Hariprasada Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.Stage.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,
AND
SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
1. The 1st opposite party preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy District, dt.11.06.2008 in CC.No.76/2006 directing him to refund Rs.66,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he secured admission in the college of the appellant/opposite party No.1 in B.Tech., Mechanical on payment of Rs.66,000/- towards tution fee for the period 2005-2008. Later he was able to secure seat in another college in the same subject. On that, his father demanded refund amount of Rs.66,000/- which was deposited towards tution fee, but the same was not returned. However, the transfer certificate, etc. were returned. In all an amount of Rs.94,600/- including remaining three years tution fee, etc. was collected. Since he did not pursue his education he was entitled to the amount with interest at 24% per annum together with damages of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3. The appellant resisted the complaint alleging that the college is managed on “No grant-in-id” basis. The student, who seeks admission, is deemed to have agreed to the rules and regulations of the institution. The complainant having secured admission in B.Tech (Mechanical Branch) joined on 25.10.2004 paying Rs.22,500/- at EAMCET counseling, besides Rs.6,300/- towards fees and deposits as mentioned in the brochure. After some time he sought for return of his certificates on the ground that he secured seat in Vasavi College of Education and also requested for return of the amount. Since, admissions in all engineering colleges were completed, they were not liable to return the amount. However, they have returned the certificates. In fact, the Convenor has issued a notification in Eenadu about the filling up of seats. He should have followed the said notification. The candidate is not entitled to any of the amounts. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.10, while the opposite party filed affidavit of one S.Jagan Mohan Reddy and documents Exs.B.1 to B.8.
5. After considering the evidence placed on record the District Forum opined that the college having closed the Mechanical Branch for which the complainant was admitted, the complainant could not be said to be at fault, when he sought seat in another college. Necessarily, the appellant had to refund the amount which he had paid. No compensation whatsoever was awarded for mental agony, etc.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the college preferred this appeal contending that by virtue of terms of agreement, marked as Ex.B.3, they were not liable to refund the amount paid towards tution fee.
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant having secured seat in appellants college in B.Tech (Mechanical Branch) paid Rs.66,000/- towards tution fee and other deposits. It is also not in dispute that the college has closed the Mechanical Branch, in their college, from the academic year 2005-2006. When they have closed the Mechanical Branch, they cannot say that they have rendered some service to the student, for the fee, that was collected from him. When the college has closed Mechanical Branch in which the complainant was admitted, it cannot turn round and say that the student has no concern with the closing of the Branch during the academic year. The Director of the appellant college in his affidavit stated that the complainant was not concerned with the closing of the Mechanical Branch in their college, as they closed the said Branch during the academic year 2005-2006. We wonder, if not the student, who else would be concerned. It is his education and he should be necessarily concerned with the closure of the branch. The student has no other go except to join in some other college where there is mechanical branch. The brochure does not mention as to what should be done in such contingencies. It is he, who intended to pursue education; and when the college took him to impart education for a particular Branch, and it having closed the same, they cannot retain the student nor the fee. It cannot be said that by virtue of terms and conditions of the agreement they were not liable to pay. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard. There are no merits in the appeal.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt:26.08.2008.
Vvr.
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.
FA No.861/2008 against CC.No.76/2006 District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy.
Between:
The Chairman/Correspondent,
Spoorthy Engg. College, Nadargul,
Saroornagar, RR District.
…Appellant/O.P.No.1.
And
1.S.Sudhendra S/o.Sri S.Rajender,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.Raghavendra Nilayam, Balaji Colony,
Mohan Nagar, RR Dist.
Rep. by his father and natural guardian,
Sri S.Rajender, S/o.late Sri S.Raghavender Rao,
Aged about 47 years, Occ: Lecturer,
R/o.Raghavendra Nilayam, Balaji Colony,
Mohan Nagar, RR Dist.
…R.1/Complainant.
2.The Secretary, A.P.State Council of Higher Education,
Saifabad, Hyderabad.
3.The Registrar, J.N.T.University,
Masabtank Road, Hyderabad.
4.The Director of Technical Education,
BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road,
Hyderabad.
…R.2 to R.4/O.Ps.2 to 4.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.M.Hariprasada Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.Stage.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,
AND
SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
1. The 1st opposite party preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy District, dt.11.06.2008 in CC.No.76/2006 directing him to refund Rs.66,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he secured admission in the college of the appellant/opposite party No.1 in B.Tech., Mechanical on payment of Rs.66,000/- towards tution fee for the period 2005-2008. Later he was able to secure seat in another college in the same subject. On that, his father demanded refund amount of Rs.66,000/- which was deposited towards tution fee, but the same was not returned. However, the transfer certificate, etc. were returned. In all an amount of Rs.94,600/- including remaining three years tution fee, etc. was collected. Since he did not pursue his education he was entitled to the amount with interest at 24% per annum together with damages of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3. The appellant resisted the complaint alleging that the college is managed on “No grant-in-id” basis. The student, who seeks admission, is deemed to have agreed to the rules and regulations of the institution. The complainant having secured admission in B.Tech (Mechanical Branch) joined on 25.10.2004 paying Rs.22,500/- at EAMCET counseling, besides Rs.6,300/- towards fees and deposits as mentioned in the brochure. After some time he sought for return of his certificates on the ground that he secured seat in Vasavi College of Education and also requested for return of the amount. Since, admissions in all engineering colleges were completed, they were not liable to return the amount. However, they have returned the certificates. In fact, the Convenor has issued a notification in Eenadu about the filling up of seats. He should have followed the said notification. The candidate is not entitled to any of the amounts. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.10, while the opposite party filed affidavit of one S.Jagan Mohan Reddy and documents Exs.B.1 to B.8.
5. After considering the evidence placed on record the District Forum opined that the college having closed the Mechanical Branch for which the complainant was admitted, the complainant could not be said to be at fault, when he sought seat in another college. Necessarily, the appellant had to refund the amount which he had paid. No compensation whatsoever was awarded for mental agony, etc.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the college preferred this appeal contending that by virtue of terms of agreement, marked as Ex.B.3, they were not liable to refund the amount paid towards tution fee.
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant having secured seat in appellants college in B.Tech (Mechanical Branch) paid Rs.66,000/- towards tution fee and other deposits. It is also not in dispute that the college has closed the Mechanical Branch, in their college, from the academic year 2005-2006. When they have closed the Mechanical Branch, they cannot say that they have rendered some service to the student, for the fee, that was collected from him. When the college has closed Mechanical Branch in which the complainant was admitted, it cannot turn round and say that the student has no concern with the closing of the Branch during the academic year. The Director of the appellant college in his affidavit stated that the complainant was not concerned with the closing of the Mechanical Branch in their college, as they closed the said Branch during the academic year 2005-2006. We wonder, if not the student, who else would be concerned. It is his education and he should be necessarily concerned with the closure of the branch. The student has no other go except to join in some other college where there is mechanical branch. The brochure does not mention as to what should be done in such contingencies. It is he, who intended to pursue education; and when the college took him to impart education for a particular Branch, and it having closed the same, they cannot retain the student nor the fee. It cannot be said that by virtue of terms and conditions of the agreement they were not liable to pay. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard. There are no merits in the appeal.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt:26.08.2008.
Vvr.
