BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.104/2008

Between

Complainant : M.C.Joseph,

Government Driver,

Quarters No.E-19B,

Painavu P.O,

Idukki District – 685 603.

(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)

And

Opposite Party : The Administrator,

N.R.I Academy of Sciences, Chinnakkani P.O,

Mangalagirimandal,

Gundoor District,

Andra Pradesh.

(By Advs: T.M.Babu & K.M.Sanu)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed for getting back the advance amount paid by the complainant for the admission of his daughter in her Bsc Nursing course in the opposite party's college and also against the deficiency in service of the opposite party.

The complainant approached the opposite party for the admission of her daughter Mareena Joseph for Bsc Nursing course at NRI Academy of Sciences in Gundur District, Andra Pradesh. At that time the complainant revealed that bank loan is essential for the admission for the study of his daughter because there is no income for the complainant except the salary as a Driver. The opposite party assured to provide all necessary help to get the bank loan. The complainant is from a poor family and he decided to send his daughter for Bsc Nursing course because she is studying well and score good marks. So the complainant remitted Rs.25,000/- as cash on 14.06.2006 to the opposite party and also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by DD from State Bank of Travancore, Idukki Branch dated 20.06.2006. The complainant requested the opposite party on 14.6.2006 to give the papers showing the fees structure for the bank loan in advance. But the opposite party was not cared to send the fee structure in time and afterwards the opposite party served the fee structure statement for a total course fee of Rs.7 lakhs. But when the complainant approached the State Bank of Travancore, Idukki Branch for availing the loan, they replied that they would give Rs. 3 lakhs only for Nursing course. So the complainant was not able to admit his daughter to the opposite party's institution by spending Rs.7 lakhs rupees. The opposite party failed to give the fee structure in time to the complainant, so that the complainant could not understand in advance that the bank will not give loan upto 7 lakhs for Bsc Nursing course. So the student was not able to study the course. The complainant requested the opposite party several times by directly and through his friend for getting back the advance paid to the opposite party as Rs.50,000/-. The failure to send the fee structure statement in time constitutes deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complainant collected Rs.50,000/- with much effort. The opposite party is duty bound to return the amount received and the complainant is entitled to get back the amount from the opposite party. So the complaint is filed for getting back the advance amount paid by the complainant for the admission of his daughter in her Bsc Nursing course in the opposite party's college.

2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the opposite party is an institution registered under the Societies Registration Act. As a non-profit organization having its registered office at Vijayawada and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The daughter of the complainant Mareena Joseph was a student of this institution and fees collected from the above said Mareena Joseph was for her course. The student Mareena Joseph is a necessary party to this proceedings. The opposite party never assured the above said Mareena Joseph to arrange bank loan for her studies. They are not arranging bank loans for the students of this institution. It is admitted that the daughter of the complainant approached this opposite party for getting admission for Bsc Nursing course in the year 2006. The opposite party issued application form along with prospectus in which clearly mentioned the fees structure of the above said course. After understood everything regarding the course and fee structure the said Mareena Joseph joined the Bsc Nursing course in the year 2006 and she paid the admission fee by 2 installments. Before taking admission, the opposite party issued fee structure along with prospectus. After closing date of the admission the above said Mareena Joseph sent a letter to the institution demanding the refund of the amount paid for the course of Bsc Nursing. The seat of the said Mareena Joseph is still vacant. It is not permitted by Nursing council of India and University authorities to admit another student in the place of Mareena Joseph after closing the admission. No information has been received by the opposite party regarding the cancellation of the admission before the closing date of the admission from the said student. So the opposite party is unable to repay the amount collected as the course fee. This opposite party suffered heavy monetory loss since the seat is vacant for the entire period of the course. So the petitioner is liable to compensate the opposite party for the loss sustained by the act of the said Mareena Joseph, and there is not deficiency in service on their part.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1to P5(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 to R4(series) marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting back the admission fee for Nursing Course, paid by the complainant for her daughter in NRI Academy of Sciences, Gundur District, Andra Pradesh. Complainant was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 14.06.2006, PW1 with her daughter approached opposite party's office for her admission for General Nursing course there and paid Rs.25,000/- as admission fee. Ext.P1 is the receipt for the same. The fee structure for the course was requested by PW1 in order to produce before the bank for availing loan. But the opposite party asked for another 25,000/- rupees for giving the fee structure. Thus a DD for Rs.25,000/- was sent to the opposite party on 20.06.2006. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2(a). A letter requesting the fee structure was written along with the DD which is marked as Ext.P2(b). But after several demands the opposite party never issued the fee structure to the complainant. Only on 30.08.2008 it was sent and is marked as Ext.P3. The fee for one year was Rs.1,63,000/-. But the bank sanctions a total loan of Rs.3 lakhs. The complainant was not able to arrange the balance amount and so he requested for the repayment of fee. Ext.P4(a) and Ext.P5(a) are the copy of the letters requesting the same. Ext.P5(b) is the postal receipt for the same. The opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1 there were 20 seats in management quota in their college, 19 students were admitted in 2006-2007. List for showing the same from the college is marked as Ext.R1. The list approved by the University for the admission in 2006-2007 is marked as Ext.R2(series) in which there only 19 students in management category. One seat was vacant because the daughter of the complainant did not join the course after paying the advance fee. The admission was closed on 30th August 2006. So they were not able to admit any other student in that vacant seat. The Principal of the Institute of Nursing Education, School of Medical Education, Regional Centre, Nedumkandam was examined as DW2. DW2 deposed that, the student Maaqreena Joseph, daughter of the complainant, joined for nursing course in their college. The admission was on 5.12.2006. The admission register copy is marked as Ext.R3(series). The admit card is marked as Ext.R4(series) dated 10.10.2006. The student was called for counseling on 10.10.2006. The fee for BSc (Nursing course) in their college is below Rs.3 lakhs.

6.It is admitted by DW1 that the complainant paid a fee of Rs.50,000/- to their college for the advance of the admission. The only dispute is whether it is entitled for refund or not. But after that the complainant's daughter never turned up. Information was given to her through another students, when reached there and also through the parents of another students through which the Ext.P2(a) DD was given. As per DW1 the student was not given admission in their college. She paid part of the fee and not submitted the original certificate before the last date of admission which is on 30th April 2006. So she was not given admission to the college. As per PW1, the fee structure was not given by the opposite party and so the complainant was not able to arrange the bank  loan and she was not able to join in the opposite party's college. But as per Ext.P4(a), letter written by PW1 to the college states that the "bank authority already stated that they would issue upto 7 lakhs rupees for the BSc Nursing. But the bank(State Bank of Travancore) which had agreed to us to give the full amount is now saying that they would give only 3 lakhs. So I cannot find the balance amount since I am the simple Government Driver". The fee structure was issued by the opposite party on 30.08.2006 as per Ext.P3, but as per the Ext.P4(a) it is seen that even though the fee structure was issued earlier, the bank was not ready to give the loan upto 7 lakhs. So the reason for the non-admission is not the delay for issuing the loan structure from the opposite party, but the non-availability of the bank loan from the bank. The complainants daughter has got admission in Institute of Nursing Education, School of Medical Education, Nedumkandam on 10.10.2006 as per Ext.R4(series), admit card. Ext.P4(a), the letter for the refund of the money, paid by the complainant, was issued only on 11.10.2006 and Ext.P5(a) letter was sent on 14.10.2006. These two letters are send by the complainant after availing admission at Nursing School at Nedumkandam affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. DW2 deposed that the fee for the Nursing Course in their college is below 3 lakhs. It means that the complainant's daughter has got admission in Nursing School at Kerala for affordable amount and so she never approached the opposite party further. As per DW1, they were not able to give admission to any other student in the place of the complainant's daughter because part payment of the fee was done by the complainant. But they never communicated the complainant through letter for taking the admission. They only intimated through other students. If the opposite party needed to fill the vacant seat, the opposite party ought have communicated to the student through letter or any other way within the reasonable time.The complainant might not be known the last date of admission, but the opposite party ought have made sure whether the complainant is needed the admission within time. Otherwise the opposite party can admit another student in that place. There is no evidence to show that the opposite party communicated to the complainant that the last date was fixed as 30th August 2006 and if she never turned up another student would be admitted in that place. Because the complainant already paid Rs.50,000/- for advance fee. It is not believable that the opposite party was waiting for the complainant's daughter for the last one year. If the same thing repeats by other students, the opposite party will not fill any management seat. So it is the duty of the opposite party to fill the management quota seats in their college. Moreover, Exts.R1 and R2 were prepared by opposite party itself. The poor people may avail bank loan for education of their students. If the loan is availed for the study, they may try for admission in other colleges also. It is quite natural that the student applied for admission in Nursing School at Kerala. She got admission in reasonable fee and so she continued there. It is not a ground for non-refund of fee. As per the public notice issued as Advt.No.AICTE/Legal/04(01)2007 by the Member Secretary Dr.K.Narayan Roa, the University of AP tells that "In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for institutions and universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificates in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. Any violation of instructions issued by the AICTE, shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and Universities. AICTE shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions". But the circular was not marked as per objection. The poor driver who paid Rs.50,000/- for admission for her daughter for Nursing course. But he was not able to take admission in the college because of the non-availability of bank loan. The same matter was informed to the college by letters. The student availed admission in a reasonable fee at Kerala. It is the duty of the college to fill their management quota seats within fixed time. The poor parent may not suffer for the same. He is entitled to get back the advance payment done by the complainant. Rs.1,000/- can be taken as processing fee. Availed admission in Kerala is not a ground for non-refund of the fee.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.49,000/- to the complainant which has paid by the complainant as per Ext.P1 and

P2(a) to the opposite party within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of March, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - M.C.Joseph

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - Y.Rajeswara Rao

DW2 - Sr.Mary Thomas

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - True copy of Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 14.06.2006

Ext.P2(a) - True copy of DD for Rs.25,000/- dated 20.06.2006

Ext.P2(b) - True copy of letter dated 20.06.2006 issued by K.S.Thomas,

Rapha Opticals, Cheruthony to the opposite party

Ext.P2(c) - True copy of DD dated 20.06.2006 for Rs.44,000/-

Ext.P3 - True copy of Fee Structure

Ext.P4(a) - True copy of complainant's letter dated 11.10.2006 addressed

to the opposite party

Ext.P4(b) - True copy of Fax Receipt

Ext.P5(a) - True copy of complainant's daughter's letter dated 14.10.2006

addressed to the opposite party

Ext.P5(b) - Postal Receipt

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Management Quota list of BSc Nursing Students for the

academic year 2006-2007 issued by the opposite party

Ext.R2(series) - List of approved candidates for admission in to Ist year Nursing

course for the year 2006-2007

Ext.R3(series) - True copy of Admission Register of BSc Nursing students in the

year 2006 of M.G School of Medical Education, Nedumkandam

Centre(8 Pages)

Ext.R4(series) - True copy of admission details of Mareena Joseph(6 Pages)