IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 29th day of November, 2016
Filed on 02.06.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.162/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Miss. Joice Jose 1. M/s. Josco College of Nursing
Thundil Puthenveedu Represented by the Principal
Padanilam P.O. Josco College of Nursing, Edappon
Nooranadu Village Iranikudi P.O., Alappuzha – 690 558
Mavelikara Taluk
Alappuzha – 690 504 2. The Principal, Josco College of
(By Adv. M.H. Baiju) Nursing, Edappon, Iranikudi P.O.
Alappuzha – 690 558
3. The Chairman, Josco College of
Nursing, -do-
(By Adv. R. Sreenivas – for
Opposite parties 1 to 3)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a first year B.Sc. Nursing student in the first opposite party’s college during the year 2014. At the time of admission, the 2nd opposite party demanded Rs.92,000/- as course fee and other charges. She got admission in the college on 16.08.2014 and she paid Rs.80,000/- in cash. After 3 weeks from the commencement of the course, complainant had got some health problems and on 25.9.2014 she intimated the fact about her health problems and difficulties to the opposite parties and requested to give back the original academic certificates which were collected at the time of admission. But the opposite parties rejected the request and intimated that they would not return the certificates unless the complainant returned the original receipts issued from the opposite parties on 16.8.2014. Complainant returned all the original cash receipts to the college as no other way before her, to get back her certificates. While she was giving back the original cash receipts, she demanded for the fee and the opposite party represented the complainant that, the paid fee of Rs.92,000/- be returned, after deducting the university registration charge and normal expenses. But the opposite parties turned down from their attitude, after obtained the original receipts. The opposite parties have not paid back the amount, even after repeated requests. In the above situation, the complainant suffered more, that mentally and financially, which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed claiming the following reliefs:-
- Allow an award, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.92,000/- to the complainant and same may be directed to be realized from the opposite parties with interest.
- To allow all costs to be realized from the opposite parties.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complainant had joined the first opposite party for B.Sc. Nursing curse in terms of the order of the Government of Kerala in the management merit quota and had remitted the fees as has been fixed by the Government of Kerala. Therefore, the opposite parties are not having any manner of right to demand any fees but is to remitted by the student as fixed by the Government. Thus it is the complainant who had remitted the fees as prescribed by the Government for obtaining the admission as fixed by the Government of Kerala. The fees and all other aspects concerning the admission and all the allied matter are fixed by the Government of Kerala and both the management and the students are bound to obey the orders and direction of the Government. As such the first opposite party had collected the fees as prescribed by the Government. So also as per clause 14 of the Order of the Government, if any student discontinues the course after 12.8.2014, at any reason, they have to remit the full fees of 4 years as liquidated damages. Thereafter on 18.9.2014, Smt. Remani Jose the mother of the complainant had submitted an application for and on behalf of the complainant alleging that she is not interested in continuing the course and required to return all the documents and fees. Therefore the 2nd opposite party had informed the clause in the order of the Government and advised them that it will be a great loss for them to discontinue the course since they are bound to pay the full course fees. Hence taking into consideration the special request, the 2nd opposite party had ordered to return all the certificates exempting her from paying the balance fees to be remitted by her. Thus the complainant studied up to 25.9.2014 and on that day after settling all the claims and endorsing so had received all the certificates and discontinued the studies. As per Government order GO(MS)No.127/2014 Hard FWD dated 28.4.2014 the educational agency can retain the tuition fees remitted by the student in the event a student admitted under the management quota or Government quota deserts or discontinues his/her studies for any reason at any time after 12.5.2014. In case any student admitted to the college decide to cancel the admission for any reason whatsoever the educational agency shall be entitled to collect the tuition fee as liquidated damages. However, in the event of the seat so falling vacant being filed up by a new candidates the tuition fee collected as per this clause shall be refunded and the documents pertaining to such student shall be released only on the payment of the above amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The mother of the complainant was examined as PW2. Documents produced were marked as Ext.A1to A10. The administrative officer of the first opposite party was examined as RW1. He has filed proof affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had joined the first opposite party’s college in the year 2014. According to the complainant on 16.8.2014 when she got admission in the college, she paid rs.80,000/- in cash vide receipt No.21941, 21942 and 21943 dated 16.8.2014 and Rs.12,000/- as vide receipt No.22143 dated 16.8.2014. Ext.A1 series No.1, 2, 3 show that complainant had paid Rs.80,000/- on 16.8.2014 and receipt voucher dated 25.8.2014 shows that complainant paid Rs.12,000/- to the opposite parties. The complainant further stated that due to the health problems, she could not continue the course and she and her mother requested the opposite parties to give back the original academic certificates, but the opposite party rejected the request and intimated that they would not return the certificates unless they returned the original fee receipts. Hence the complainant returned the original fee receipts, but the opposite party refused to pay back the fee of Rs.92,000/-. Opposite party filed version stating that they had collected the fees as prescribed by the Government. As per clause 14 of order of the Government if any student discontinues the course after 12.8.2014, they have to remit the full fees of four years as liquidated damages. They also stated that in the event of the seat so falling vacant being filled up by a new candidate, the tuition fees collected as per 6 clause shall be refunded and the documents pertaining to such student shall be released only on the payment of the above amount. The said order dated 28.4.2014 is produced by the opposite party and it marked as Ext.B4. The complainant produced a letter dated 16.8.2014 issued by the first opposite party and it marked as Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 it is stated that, “Dear Student, You are hereby informed that first year B.Sc. Nursing classes will be commenced on 25th August, 2014. So you are requested to report to the college office at 10 a.m. with following necessary things for starting your regular classes.” Apart from that Ext.A1 receipts issued by the opposite party show that the complainant remitted fees on 16.8.2014 and 25.8.2014. As per Ext.A2 shows classes will be commenced on 25.8.2014. Ext.A7 is the prospectus of Josco College of Nursing for the year 2014-15. In Ext.A7 under the head admission and fees, it is stated that, “If any candidate discontinues the course, after closing of admission (30.10.2014 for 2014-15), the candidate has to pay the full fee of the remaining courses (4 years).” Opposite party admitted in the version that on 18.9.2014 the complainant and her mother submitted her application alleging that she is not interested in continuing the course and required to return all the documents and fees. While cross examining the RW1 he admitted that only online registration was done after 30.10.2014. Complainant produced the details regarding the cutoff date of admission, list of students registered during the academic year 2014-15 and it marked as Exts.A8, A9 and A10. As per Ext.A9 the cutoff date for the admission to the first opposite party in the year 2014 was 15.11.2014. The number of students registered during that year was 60. Ext.A10 is the details of the registered students. The contention of the opposite party is that no student has been admitted in the vacancy of the complainant since she had left the institution after the cutoff date fixed by the Government. In order to substantiate that contention, opposite party has produced the name of the students of the college who attended the B.Sc. nursing course and it marked as Ext.B5. They also produced the examination registration report generated on 22.9.2015 and it marked as Ext.B6. As per Exts.B5 and B6 only 59 students attended the B.Sc. Nursing course during the year 2014. Exts.A8, A9 and A10 are the documents obtained by the complainant as per the Right to Information Act. It show that number of students registered is as 60 in No. But in Ext.B6 the registration report produced by the opposite party the number of students shown as 59. In Ext.A10 list one student named Athira Vijayan is included as 13th student and her admission date is shown as 22.9.2014. But her name is not seen in the list produced by the opposite party. At the same time, the complainant’s name is not seen in the Ext.A10 list. While cross examining RW1 deposed before the Forum that the opposite party has not produced the list of students whose name registered in the university. To the question put forward by the counsel of the complainant, “ Sn hÀjw hmZn vacant þBb koän BXncm hnP-b³ F¶ Ip«nbv¡v admission e`n-¨n-«p-s¶v ]d-ªm icn-btà ? He answered, “sImSp-¯n-«nÃ.” But Ext.A10 shows that Athira Vijayan’s name is included in the registration list. Since the opposite party failed to produce the list of students registered for examination, the deposition of RW1 that they have not given admission to “Athira Vijayan” is not seen as true.
7. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had remitted the fees on 16.8.2014, and the classes have commenced on 25.8.2014. The cutoff date of admission for the year 2014-15 is 15.11.2014. The total number of students registered in the university is 60. The complainant’s name is not included in the registration list of the first opposite party college. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that since the seat falling vacant due to the discontinuance of the complainant filled up by a new candidate, the entire fee collected from the complainant after deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded to the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.91,000/- (Rupees ninety one thousand only) with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted, no further amount ordered as compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Joice Jose (Witness)
PW2 - Remani (Witness)
Ext.A1series - Copy of the receipts (4 Nos.)
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 16.8.2014
Ext.A3 - True copy of the lawyer notice dated 20.1.2015
Ext.A4 - Postal receipts 2 Nos.)
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.)
Ext.A6 - Copy of the details of items to be brought while joining the college for
B.Sc. Nursing
Ext.A7 - Prospectus
Ext.A8 - RTI letter dated 8.3.2016
Ext.A9 - RTI letter dated 24.2.2016
Ext.A10 - Details of RTI letter reply dated 12.2.2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Biju Thomas (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Letter dated 18.9.2014
Ext.B2 - Letter from the mother of the complainant
Ext.B3 - Documents received letter from the mother of the complainant
Ext.B4 - Copy of the Government order
Ext.B5 - Copy of the Theory Attendance Register of Josco College of Nursing
Ext.B6 - Copy of the Examination Registration report
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
