BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. No. 546/2006 against C.D. 697/2004, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad
Between:
M. Manmadha Rao,
S/o. M. T. Dora
Age: 59 years, Advocate
H.No. 43-17-8/8
Venkatraju Nagar
Akkayyapalem Post
Visakapatnam-530 016. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
The ICFAI Business School
IBS, Headquarters
No. 62, Nagarjuna Hills
Punjagutta, Hyderabad-082.
Rep. by its Chairman. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. T. P. Acharya
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. B. Viswanath Reddy.
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief is that his son M. Roshan Kumar responded to the advertisement issued in the newspapers by the respondent calling for applications for admission to two year PGDBA programme 2002 wherein final year degree students could also apply. There was no mention that degree certificate was necessary to take admission into the said course. His son had informed that he did not complete his degree, and there were some backlog papers which he had to attend. The opposite party allowed
his son to undergo the entire selection process and by letter Dt. 19.4.2002 he was directed to report at Pune by 1.6.2002 for taking the programme of PGDBA. It had collected Rs. 2,00,000/- apart from refundable caution fee of Rs. 5,000/- and Off Campus accommodation fee of Rs. 16,000/-. While so in April, 2003 he was informed that his son was debarred from attending the classes. However, the demand draft for Rs. 40,000/- sent by him in July, 2003 was received. Later on 19.7.2003 he was informed that his son’s admission was terminated mentioning that it had enclosed a letter Dt. 27.4.2003. The said letter was never communicated to him. Having received Rs. 2,40,000/- it could not have cancelled his admission. Therefore, he prayed that an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- be refunded with interest @ 24% p.a., from 1.5.2003 besides Rs. 5,000/- towards refundable caution deposit, Rs. 16,000/- towards off campus accommodation deposit, Rs. 75,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
The respondent institute resisted the case. While admitting issuance of advertisement even for those students who were appearing for the graduation examination, it alleged that in their prospectus it made it clear that the admission was provisional till the student produced the marks sheet and degree certificate establishing his eligibility. However, it admitted that complainant had paid Rs. 2 lakhs, and Rs. 40,000/- on 9.7.2003 under demand draft, and also Rs. 5,000/- towards caution deposit, and Rs. 16,000/- towards off campus accommodation. The last date for submission of proof of graduation was 1.11.2002. Under clause 5.13 of student regulation under the heading cancellation of provisional admission, it was mentioned that permissible refund would be 75% of the tuition fee and caution deposit. An application for refund of amount was to be submitted on or before 1.11.2002.
Later the deposits would be returned on completion of the course or as per the cancellation of provisional admission without interest. On 27.4.2003 itself it informed about the cancellation of admission of his son. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- that was sent through demand draft was encashed in routine course. When it was found that registration was cancelled it was kept in a separate account. Since there was no request from the complainant the amount was not paid. The complainant was entitled to 75% of the tuition fee without interest and that too it would be refunded only on request. Though the time was extended till April, 2003 in order to enable the complainant’s son to complete his graduation he could not do so. Taking advantage of typographical mistake in the letter Dt. 27.4.2003 the complainant filed the case. Since the complainant did not approach for refund of the amount as per the rules the said amount could not be refunded. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked while the respondent institute filed Exs. B1 to B8.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record directed the respondent institute to refund Rs. 40,000/- besides caution deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and off campus accommodation fee of Rs. 16,000/- without costs.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that though the respondent institute was prepared to refund 75% of the tuition fee the Dist. Forum did not direct it to pay. In fact the order that was passed was already complied by the institute during the pendency of the C.D. Therefore, he prayed that refund of amount be ordered.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs. 2 lakhs towards tuition fee. It is also not in dispute that he paid Rs. 40,000/- by way of demand draft in the month of July, 2003 besides caution deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and off campus accommodation fee of Rs. 16,000/-. The complainant paid these amounts towards admission of his son into PGDBA course. Since the very institute, the respondent herein allowed the students to apply for the said course even before completing degree course the complainant’s son paid the said amount but could not complete his degree examination. Later his admission was cancelled on the ground that he did not fulfill the criteria for attending to PGDBA course. It is not the case of the complainant that his son had obtained degree in order to take the said course. The fact remains that the very institute had agreed to refund 75% of the tuition fee besides other amounts. Under Clause 5.13 of financial regulations 75% of the fee had to be refunded. It also reads that application for refund of fee is to be submitted. Now the institute alleges that since he did not seek for refund of the amount, it could not repay the same. The fact remains that even after a request was made by way of legal notice under Ex. A11 Dt. 20.10.2003 it did not refund. We do not see any justification in keeping the said amount with it when it had returned other amounts. Undoubtedly, it has the amount with it all through and benefited itself all through. Though the institute alleges that it did not carry any interest, such a clause was not incorporated in Clause 5.13 of financial regulations. When the opposite party institute was fully aware that it had to refund 75% of the amount it ought to have refunded the same. Even when it returned other amounts it could have returned 75% of the amount viz., Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is an unjust enrichment. The Dist. Forum did not award the said amount despite the fact that the complainant requested that the said amount be paid with interest @ 24% p.a., from 1.5.2003.
Since the very institute agreed to refund the said amount, we are of the opinion that the said amount had to be refunded with a reasonable interest, which we deem it at 9% p.a., more so, when the claim was made through legal notice Dt. 20.10.2003. It could have treated it as an application for refund as there is no proforma application specifically prepared to fill it up.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part directing the respondent institute to refund an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of notice i.e., 20.10.2003 till the date of realization with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt. 23. 01. 2009.
