| Complaint Case No. CC/10/52 |
| | | | 1. Mellacheruvu Krishnaveni, D/o. Ramarao, Age:22 years, Occu: Student, R/o. H.No.4-2-150/3/2D, Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam town and District. | | Mellacheruvu Krishnaveni, D/o. Ramarao, Age:22 years, Occu: Student, R/o. H.No.4-2-150/3/2D, Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam town and District. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | | Versus | | 1. M/s. Sarada Insititute of Technology & Science,Sarada Nagar, Yellandu Road,Raghunadhapalem Village,Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District. | | M/s. Sarada Insititute of Technology & Science,Sarada Nagar, Yellandu Road,Raghunadhapalem Village,Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 3rd day of January, 2011 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L. - Member C.C. No. 52/2010 Between: Mellacheruvu Krishnaveni, D/o Rama Rao, Age:22years, Occu:Student, R/o H.No.4-2-150/3/2D, Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam Town and District. …Complainant And M/s Sarada Institute of Technology & Science, Sarada Nagar, YellanduRoad, Raghunadhapalem Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. …Opposite party. This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Rama Sesham Raju, Advocate for complainant, Sri. K. P. Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got admission in M.B.A. Course in the institution of opposite party through I-CET Entrance test, the duration of course is for two years i.e. from 2009 to 2011 academic years and as per the demands of opposite party, the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- on 29-09-2009 towards tuition fee and submitted relevant certificates. The complainant intended to withdraw the college within few days due to inability to follow the lectures in some subjects and informed the same to the authorities by requesting to refund the fee, the opposite party promised to refund the same within few days but failed to do so. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 07-05-2010, however, the opposite party failed to give reply nor refunded the fee, paid by the complainant, due to which, filed the complaint by praying to direct the opposite party to refund the tuition fee of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards damages and return the original certificates of the complainant and costs. 2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as Exhibits. Ex.A1:- Payment receipt, dt.29-09-2009, for Rs.20,000/-. Ex.A2:- Office copy of legal notice, dt.07-05-2010 with postal acknowledgement. 3. On being received the notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint. In the counter, the opposite party submitted that it has competent qualified lecturers for imparting education and also contended that the cause of withdrawal can not be a ground to leave the institution and sought relief through the Forum as there is no deficiency on their part and the complainant herself mentioned that she is unable to follow the lectures and intends to withdraw the college, which is unilateral and voluntary decision of the complainant. The complainant never raised any objection with regard to the quality of education before filing the present complaint and the seat is kept vacant and as such due to refund of fee, causes great loss to the opposite party and also submitted that there is no liability to pay the amounts as prayed by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 4. During the course of proceedings, the complainant had filed an I.A. bearing No.125/2010 for return of original certificates, which was kept with the opposite party. Having perused the petition and heard the counsel for petitioner, this Forum allowed the petition and directed the opposite party to furnish all the original certificates of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? Point:- It is the case of the complainant that she obtained seat in M.B.A. Course in the college of opposite party and paid Rs.20,000/- towards tuition fee at the time of admission and after attending the course for some days, she intends to withdraw the course from the institution of opposite party and requested the opposite party to refund the fees paid by her and wanted to return the original certificates, which were received by the opposite party at the time of admission but the opposite party failed to do so even after issuance of legal notice and also failed to furnish the original certificates and refund of fee even after approaching the Forum. Due to which, the complainant filed a petition by praying to furnish the original certificates on urgency of original certificates for intending to join in another course. After giving directions by this Forum only, the opposite party handed over the original certificates to the complainant and as such the attitude of opposite party is definitely amounts to deficiency of service. On the other hand, the opposite party resisted the case of the complainant by filing its counter and submitted that the complainant herself withdrawn from the college due to inability to follow the lectures and as such there is no deficiency on their part. After having perused Ex.A1 and contents of complaint and counter it is clear that the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- towards tuition fee and attended the classes for some days and afterwards withdrew from the course and it is clear that the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- for imparting education from the opposite party and due to inability to understand the classes only, intended to withdraw the college after few days, but did not clarify the reason for not understanding the classes and nor specify how many days she attended the college and on the other hand the opposite party also failed to file any proof regarding the attendance of the complainant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite party cannot withhold the fee without rendering its services even after withdrawal from its institution and kept the certificates in its custody even inspite of requests and issuance of legal notice, which amounts to deficiency of service on its part. The collection of fee without rendering any services is unfair and as such the complainant is entitled to get the amount, paid towards tuition fee by excluding the fee for availing services for such days as mentioned in her complaint. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite party is liable to refund the amount paid towards tuition fee by excluding Rs.5,000/- as approximately towards giving education and other services to the complainant for the period, when she being the student in the college of opposite party. 6. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) paid by the complainant towards tuition fee and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs. Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 3rd day of January, 2011. President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant:- Ex.A1:- Payment receipt, dt.29-09-2009, for Rs.20,000/-. Ex.A2:- Office copy of legal notice, dt.07-05-2010 with postal acknowledgement Exhibits marked for opposite party:- - Nil - President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam. | |
