F.A.No.900/2009 against  C.C.No.247/2008, DISTRICT FORUM-II, Vijayawada , Krishna Dist. .      

Between

1.Gitam Institute of International Business,

Gitam University , Rep. by its Director,

    Prof. V.K.Kumar, Gandhinagar Campus,

    Rushi konda , Visakhapatnam-530 045.

2. Gitam Institute of International Business, ,

    Gitam University, rep. by its Authorised

    Signatory , Director, Gandhinagar Campus,

    Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam- 530 045.             … Appellants/

                                                                         Opp.parties

                And

Suryadevera Venkata Subba Rao,

S/o.Nageshwara Rao,

R/o.D.No.60-5-8, Sneha Sowdha Apts.,

S.F.1,2^nd line, Technical Nagar,

Vijayawada -4.                                                    …  Respondent/

                                                                            Complainant             

Counsel for the Appellants      :    M/s. Smt.N.(P)Anjana Devi   

Counsel for the Respondent    :     Mr.V.Gouri Sankar Rao     

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE MEMBER

                        AND

                SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE  THIRD  DAY  OF AUGUST,

                TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

        Oral Order : (Per  Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                ****

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.247/08 on the file  of  Dist.Forum-II,  Vijayawada,  Krishna,  the opp.parties preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that  the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh on 7.7.08 to the Administrative Officer of the opposite party University and obtained seat confirmation letter in NRI quota for the academic year 2008-09  in PGDIB Course for the complainant’s son. The complainant submits that he paid another sum of  Rs.2 lakhs on 7.7.08 by way of two DDs drawn  on SBI, Vijayawada and paid the same to the opposite parties towards one year fee and paid Rs.30,000/- towards hostel fees. The classes commenced on 1.8.08 and the complainant’s son became ill and attended classed for  only one week  and did not attend  classes from 7.8.08 and wrote a letter to the opposite party on 28.8.08 enclosing a doctor certificate to pay back the said amounts and on receiving the said letter  the hostel authorities returned a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of cheque  and did not  refund  Rs.3 lakhs stating that the academic year 2008-09 was closed on  31.7.08.  The opposite parties  imparted post graduation courses as it is declared as deemed  to be university under Section 3  of  UGC Act ,1956.  The complainant submits that the opposite party  University is not a deemed University but only a ‘deemed to be’ University  and therefore their rules and regulations with respect to refund of fee is not tenable.  The complainant did not take  services of the opposite party because of his ill health and therefore he is entitled to an amount of Rs.3 lakhs paid  by him together with interest, compensation and costs. 

        The opposite parties filed   their version stating that the student was admitted under Management Quota after his performance in the written test GD/PI.  The payments were made as per the rules of the University and the complainant informed vide letter dt.28.8.08 that his son is ill and he cannot attend the classes and  the opposite parties admit that the  student stopped attending the classes from 7.8.08 and therefore they refunded Rs.30,000/- paid towards hostel fees.  The Institute complied with the rules laid down by AICTE and approved by Board of Management University.  All the students withdrew from the programme before the start of the programme were refunded with the money, but those who withdrew after the closure of the admissions were not refunded with the amounts as the university cannot fill up the seat.   The complainant sent the letter dt.28.8.08 which was received by the opposite party on 30.8.08 and the admissions were closed on 31.7.08 and therefore the amounts could not be refunded and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. 

 The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A5 allowed the complaint and directed opp.parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.3 lakhs with  9% interest  from the date of filing of the complaint  till the date of  payment together with costs of Rs.2000/-.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

        The facts not in dispute are that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs under Management Quota on 7.7.08 to the opposite parties apart from Rs.30,000/- towards hostel fees.  It is also an admitted fact that the classes commenced on 1.8.08 and the complainant’s son attended the classes till 7.8.08 and thereafter fell ill and did not attend the classes and sent a letter vide Ex.A3 dt.28.8.08 stating that the student is not in a position to rejoin the course because of his illness and to refund the amounts paid.  Ex.A4 is the Doctor Certificate evidencing  that the student  was ill.    It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that they have refunded Rs.30,000/-paid towards hostel fees and that their University is a Deemed University and that they are ready and willing to offer their services but it is the complainant’s son who voluntarily withdrew  from  the course on account of his ill health.    Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by the appellants/opp.parties on 23.9.08 stating that as per the University guidelines ‘if a student withdraws from the programme  after the closing date of admission fee paid by the candidate shall not be refunded’.  The admissions were closed on 31.7.08 and admittedly Ex.A3 letter is dt.28.8.08 much after the closing date of admission.  It is the opposite parties’  case that they have also lost one seat  and therefore the complainant’s son is not entitled to the tuition fees paid and the opp.parties are willing to render their services and it is the complainant’s son who has withdrawn from the college voluntarily  on account of his ill health after the closing date of admissions and  the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the tuition fees  does not amount to deficiency in service. In Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital vs. Gunita Virk   reported in 1 (1996) CPJ 37 NC, the National Commission held as follows:

        “If a student/students apply for admission and deposit the fees and later on do not want to join the course, then the seat/seats so vacated will remain vacant throughout the academic year.  In such circumstances it will become very difficult for any institution to run in a proper manner.”

 We also rely on the judgement of National Commission in Ramdeo baba Engineering College vs. Sushanth Yuvraj Rode & Anr.  the National Commission vide dealing with a similar case held as follows:

        “This is a case where there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College.  The respondent complainant Shri Rode withdrew from the College to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College.  Non refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service.  Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of  his pursuing studies in the College after admission.  It is quid pro quo for such service.”

We also rely on the  judgement of National Commission  in The Principal , Maharshi Veda Vigyan Mahavidyalaya  Women’s College Vs. P.Sankar  Rao wherein the National Commission held as follows:

        “ when a student voluntarily leaves an educational  institution, there is no deficiency in service on the part of that educational institution  so as to entitle that student for refund of fees already paid for the period he did not receive instruction because of his leaving the institution on his own volition.  The rationale for this is that the educational institution is willing  and ready to impart education but it is the student who is responsible for not receiving the service by leaving the institution abruptly.  No equitable considerations weigh, under those circumstances, when infact there is no deficiency in service.  It is a fortiorari case when the prospectus of the educational institution places the position beyond doubt.”     

Ex.A5 letter dt.23.9.08 issued by the College which is a Deemed University, clearly states that the admissions for  2008-2010  batch was closed  on 31.7.2008 and  that the student’s letter of  discontinuation  is dated 28.8.2008  and therefore they cannot refund the fees. This closing date of admission has been stated by the opposite parties in their affidavit by way of evidence and this date has not been refuted by the complainant  either in his complaint or in his affidavit.       

In the instant case it is an admitted fact  that the student withdraw ( Ex.A3 dt.28.8.08) voluntarily that too after the closure date 31.7.08, we are of the considered view that the aforementioned judgement applies to the instant case and therefore the complainant’s son is not entitled to the refund of fees and the order of the District Forum is set aside. 

In the result this appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed . No costs.

                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                                                MEMBER

Pm*                                                                                                                          Dt. 3.8.2011