Complaint filed on: 31.10.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 24.03.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1834/2014

DATED THIS THE 24^th MARCH OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.Ravi.N.S

s/o late M.Siddappa

aged about 47 years

residing at no.79, I cross,

2^nd Main, SBM colony,

Arunodaya Road,

Konanakunte,

Bengaluru-560062

By advocates

M/s.Samanva Law Associates

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

M/s.Vogue Institute of

Fashion Technology,

Football Stadium Complex, Diagonally opp. to

Garuda Mall, off. M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560025

Represented by its Chairman

By Adv.Sri.H.P.Ganesh Gowda

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party in not providing the transport facility to his daughter studying in First year B.Sc., Fashion Technology of Opposite party college and thereby has claimed the total compensation amount of Rs.2 lakhs including the refund of college fees.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that when his daughter Kum.Nidhi.R intended to join the Opposite party college, his wife Smt.AnithaRavi approached the Opposite party on 05.06.14 enquiring about fee structure and other facilities of the college and on satisfying herself about the assured transport facility by bus at close destination, got admitted her daughter for fashion technology degree course by paying Rs.50,000/- on 14.06.14.  When her daughter started attending the classes, it was learnt that the bus facility was not provided to Konanakunte, Bengaluru and his daughter had to travel up to J.P.Nagar 15^th cross junction to board the college bus. She had to reach that stop by travelling in 2 buses. Several email communications were made about the deficiency in providing the assured services. Through email dtd.30.07.14 it was stated that Opposite party cannot provide the pickup point as desired by him. Hence Complainant’s wife requested for refund of Rs.50,000/- even by writing letter dtd.19.08.14. Hence this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party has filed the version denying the allegations made against him contending that the Complainant’s daughter had selected the course of her choice after councel being fully satisfied. The Opposite party had not assured to provide college bus facility to Rajanandini hospital at Konankunte and it is falsely alleged that the pickup point offered by the institute at Sarakki traffic signal is 2 km from the student’s house. The letter dtd.19.08.14 of the Complainant was suitably replied explaining about the reasons for not returning the non-refundable fees once paid. The act of the Complainant in withdrawing his daughter from their institute after commencement of academic year resulted in denial of an opportunity to another needy student and thereby they sustained loss of Rs.3,51,500/-. His demand becomes very unreasonable, because he must have changed his plan for his daughter’s education and frustrating the Opposite party by filing this complaint on false and frivolous grounds. There is no deficiency in their service. Providing of transport facility is not their primary object. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          4. The Complainant & the principal of Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences relying on Ex-A1 to A6 and Ex-B1 to B3 documents respectively. Written arguments were filed by both side. Arguments were heard.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant established that non-providing of college bus facility as desired by him to his daughter nearby to their house by the Opposite party becomes deficiency in their service ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant along with his wife Smt.AnithaRavi for their daughter Kum.Nidhi.R got admission to B.Sc., in Fashion Technology design in the 18 years old Opposite party institution. The said course B.Sc., was affiliated by the Karnataka State Open University. The daughter of the Complainant was first class student in PUC and submitted her application/Ex-B1 on 14.06.14 and attended for the classes as a student no.42 up to 18.06.14 as shown in attendance registers extracts Ex-B2 & Ex-B3 and later remained absent.

8. She had paid the fee of Rs.50,000/- on 14.06.14 wide Ex-A2. The wife of the Complainant had e-mail transaction with Opposite party as per Ex-A1 sheets, enquiring about her doubts including about the transport facilities. The e-mail transaction was started from 05.06.14 till the end of July 2014. The Complainant had sent the letter Ex-A3 dtd. 23.07.14 & Ex-A4 dtd.19.08.14 informing that his daughter was withdrawn from the institution.  Later he sent the legal notice/Ex-A6 dtd.16.09.14 by registered post seeking refund of Rs.50,000/- and it is served on the Opposite party.

          9. The relief sought for by the Complainant is for getting refund of Rs.50,000/- paid towards blocking of the seat with interest  24% from 30.07.14 along with damages of Rs.1,50,000/-. The grounds made out for such relief is for the alleged absence of transportation facilities from his address/house at 1^st cross, 2^nd main, SBM colony, Arunodaya road, Konanakunte, Bengaluru-62 to the Opposite party college at Doddaballapura.

          10. In the email transactions it is admitted that Kum.Nidhi.R is ready to travel as she is happy with mentors and college if the transport facility should become convenient. The email transactions also show that the wife of the Complainant was informed to be present with her daughter to know more about all her enquiries including about the transport facilities. Such letters were issued by the Opposite party through email dtd.09.06.14 and thereafter only the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the portion of tuition fees was paid.

          11. Ex-A2 shows that out of Rs.50,000/- paid, Rs.750/- is towards the prospectus, Rs.1,500/- is towards the registration charges and balance of Rs.47,750/- is towards the tuition fees. At the end of Ex-A1, it is also mentioned that the fees once paid will not be refunded.

12. In Ex-A1 email transaction also it is informed that the first year tuition fees becomes Rs.1,09,800/- (onetime payment each year) which amounts to total Rs.3,03,850/- for the entire course. It is clear that the Complainant paid Rs.47,750/- towards portion of tuition fees and the balance amount of Rs.2,250/- is towards miscellaneous expenditure. The said fees once declared as non-refundable, cannot become refundable in favour of the Complainant that too on the ground of non-providing of pick up point at the desired place to the college bus of that area.  

13. As rightly contended by the Opposite party, the primary duty is not the transport business and the college buses are being run to accommodate the students by catering their needs to reach the college in time.

          14. According to the Complainant, the Opposite party institution is about 50 km away from his house and the college bus did not provide stop to the nearest place of his house and that Sarakki traffic signal, where his daughter was asked to board the bus was approximately 2 km from his house.

15. It is not the case that the Opposite party has not provided hostel facility to the students. It is also not the case that the daughter of Complainant is not ready to travel such distance. At the same time it is true that both the Complainant and his wife being employees found it difficult to take care about the safe return of daughter. Such responsibility cannot be shifted on the college without making alternative arrangements at their side.  His daughter being the first class student, through the counselling got the seat in the said prestigious institution and if she is withdrawn from the college, as rightly contended by the Opposite party, it amounts to denial of the opportunity to the next eligible student.

          16. The allegations made by the Complainant are that, the Opposite party had promised and assured to provide transport facility near the door step of his house. The said allegations is denied by the Opposite party in the email transaction letter itself. The said issue cannot be decided in the consumer forum. There is no contractual terms to enforce it. The Complainant could have produced the prospectus, if such assurances were made by the Opposite party in the prospectus. Providing of transport facilities from all parts of Bengaluru even for arguments sake is accepted, it cannot be twisted as the right of the student to get the college bus to his desired place.

17. When the request was made by the Complainant and his wife, the Opposite party administration considered the same and felt non-feasible, by giving reasons. Then the Complainant could have demanded back the charges if paid towards the transportation charges. But has no right to demand the refund of non-refundable college fees.

          18. The Complainant has failed to establish that he has paid Rs.50,000/- including the transportation charges. His own receipt Ex-A2 shows that more than Rs.47,000/- paid by him is towards the portion of tuition fees, which cannot be refunded. Hence the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged deficiency on the part of the Opposite party and also failed to establish the alleged right of demanding back the portion of tuition fees paid by him.  Accordingly the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the negative.

          19. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings and the reasons of the Consumer Dispute No.1, the Complainant does not deserve to get back the non-refundable fees paid by him and hence deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 24^th day of March 2017).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s