BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 873/2008 against C.C. 208/2005, Dist. Forum, Kakinada.
Between:
Devarakonda Ramakrishna
S/o. Satyanarayana
Kakinada. *** Appellant/
Complainant
. And
The Director
International Institute of Information Technology
PUNE. *** Respondent/O.P
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V.G.S. Rao
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. S. Sridhar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1. Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he completed B.Tech in Civil Engineering in 2004 from JNTU, Ananthapuram. In order to have bright future, and after seeing the publication issued by the respondent institute, he intended to join Master of Science programme in Advanced Information Technology (MSP-AIT) with specialization in advanced software technologies for a period of 18 months with bridge course. It is aimed to learn course of MSP-AIT being offered by the respondent. Accordingly he joined in the said course by paying Rs. 1, 68,000/- on 6.2.2005. viz., Rs. 1,000/- towards application fee, Rs. 25,000/- towards admission fee for January, 2005 AST stream, Rs. 1, 17,000/- towards 1st instalment fee, Rs. 6,300/- towards membership fee, and Rs. 18,700/- towards hostel fee. He was allotted a room in the hostel on 6.2.2005, and the course was commenced on 7.2.2005. However, he found that no bridge course was conducted. In spite of his request it did not conduct the classes in bridge course before commencement of main course and therefore he has no other go than to opt out from the said course. When he sought for refund of the amount and issued legal notice for which the respondent sent a cheque for Rs. 16,425/- alleging falsely that it was towards full and final settlement along with its reply dt. 12.3.2005. In fact he was not made aware of refund rules. No brochure or refund rules were supplied. Non-imparting of bridge course amounts to deficiency in service and therefore he sought for refund of Rs. 1,68,000/- less Rs. 16,425/- together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3) The respondent resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant was admitted in MSPAIT course on payment of Rs. 1,68,000/- on 6.2.2005 it denied that the bridge course was not conducted and that faculty had started the main course without introductory course contrary to the promise. The allegation that neither brochure nor refund rules were furnished was equally false. At the time of joining, brochure and form of fee structure were furnished and only after verifying and satisfied with the terms he joined in the course. He gave a declaration to that effect. In fact he himself gave a letter dt. 15.4.2005 stating that he was unable to cope up with the classes and therefore he intended to withdraw from the course and process his request. The allegation that it was signed as per their dictation is not correct. He is not a lay man. When once the academic course has been started the only refund possible was that of deposits viz., 90% of lab deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and hostel deposit of Rs. 8,250/-. Therefore an amount of Rs. 16,425/- was paid by way of cheque in favour of complainant. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9 marked, while the respondent did not file any affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that it has no territorial jurisdiction and the complainant was an engineering graduate and that would not have signed as per the dictation and that he himself had voluntarily discontinued the studies and would not be entitled to the amount and the amount that was refunded viz., Rs. 16,425/- was sufficient and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that since first instalment was paid by way of demand draft taken at Kakinada and as such the Dist. Forum at Kakinada has jurisdiction. It ought to have seen that Ex. B2 does not contain his signature or that of his father. He had attended the classes only for a period of one week and since they could not impart the bridge course as promised, he himself sought for refund of the amount on the ground that he was discontinuing the said course. The amount was taken for imparting bridge course. He had not voluntarily withdrawn from the classes. It was due to non-imparting of bridge course as promised. The terms and conditions for refund of amount under Ex. B3 are not applicable in view of deficiency in service on their part. Therefore he prayed that the complaint be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has completed B.Tech in Civil Engineering in 2004 from JNTU, Ananthapuram. The respondent has offered Master of Science programme in Advanced Information Technology (MSP-AIT) with specialization in advanced software technologies for a period of 18 months with bridge course evidenced under Ex. A9. It is also not in dispute that they have collected Rs. 1, 68,000/- from the complainant. Refund rules are as follows:
REFUND RULES:
“Written requests have to be submitted for any refund and date of receipt of the request will be treated as the eligibility for refund rules. In case of any ambiguity the decision of the Directors shall be final. No correspondence will be entertained regarding the refund rules.”
Before Commencement of classes:
“If the student has paid the admission fee of Rs. 25,000/- he/she would be refunded Rs. 15,000/- only, after deduction of the administrative fee. If the student has paid the admission fee as well as the first instalment, he/she would be refunded the first instalment free only, after deducting administrative fee of Rs. 25,000/-.”
After commencement of classes:
“The student would be refunded only the refundable deposit amount (up to 90%) as mentioned in the fee component. Other fees paid are not refundable under any circumstances.”
The fee payment schedule is as follows:
Last date of payment of admission fee 31.1. 2005.
Last date of payment of 1st instalment 07.02.2005
Last date of payment of 2nd instalment 07.08.2005
Course commencement 07.02.2005.
Evidently he paid the first instalment within the schedule viz., by 6.2.2005 itself. The terms of admission were mentioned in Ex.B1. Though the respondent alleged that they had given the brochure they did not file the said brochure in order to find out whether they had promised to impart bridge course as contended by the complainant. The respondent did not even file student hand book that said to have been displayed on their website. When the complainant asserts that bridge course was not imparted, the respondent did not file the affidavit evidence of any of the lecturers who had imparted the said course or that of any of the students who had taken the said course. The refund rules would apply provided the course that was promised to be imparted was imparted. The institute by no stretch of imagination,can refuse payment when they could not impart the bridge course as promised by them.
There is no condition wherein non-imparting of course or curriculum would enable them to appropriate the amount. Apart from it as we can see refund request form was in a printed form and refund policy conditions are loaded in their favour. There is no scope for getting over the conditions of the form. It is not as though the complainant was not selected without evaluating his academic back ground. In their letter they have categorically mentioned “ He was selected for the said course after due evaluation of his academic back ground and skills and our records shows that he was found competent to undertake the course. It may be mentioned that the students from various backgrounds elect to take our course, and we take this factor into account when we set our curriculum. Compulsory “Bridge Course” you refer to have been offered for this particular batch. The syllabus to be followed would has systematically taken the student up to the required level of learning. There are several students in the same batch from different backgrounds who are undergoing the programme without any difficulty whatsoever.”
9) A reading of the above would not show that the bridge course was not offered. In fact in his letter Dt. 15.2.2005 he made a categorical mention that he was unable to cope up with the classes and as such he wanted to withdraw from the said course, and process his request as soon as possible. The restrictions that were imposed for refund in Ex. A9 do not in any way bind him in the light of above facts. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this amounts to deficiency in service and the respondent institute is liable to refund the amount that was collected. He had paid Rs. 1,68,000/-. However, in view of the fact that he had been in the institute for a period of one week and had been in the hostel for the said period, we feel that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- could be deducted from the said amount.
10) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the respondent institute to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- together with costs of Rs. 5,000/- in this appeal . We do not intend to award any interest or compensation. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 15. 11. 2010
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
