PRESENT
Complainant in person.
Opponent by Adv. Hemant Naik present.
ORDER
(Per Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)
1. The complainant has filed complaint against opponent educational institute as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service.
2. The complainant had taken admission in mukesh patel school of Technology Management and Engineering. The admission was take n directly without appearing for common entrance test of opponent. He opted for computer science. The admission fees of Rs.2,05,000/- was paid at the time of admission on 20.07.2010.
3. The complainant secured admission in another college through Maharashtra State CET 2010. On 25.09.2010 he applied for cancelation and claimed refund of the amount. Opp. agreed to refund only Rs.5000/- on which complainant requested through letters an amount 5 % or 10 % be deducted and remaining amount be refunded to him.
4. The complainant and his mother made representation to various authorities such a AICTE . According to complainant joint secretary HRD Govt. of India issued direction dated 30.04.2007 stating that only processing fees should be deducted. The Opp. was liable to refund the amount as per directions issued by joint Secretary. The Opp. ignored guidelines issued by
UGC as well as public notice.
5. The complainant allege that Opp. be directed to refund amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with 15 % interest with compensation and cost.
6. The Opp. filed written statement and submitted that complaint is misconceived and is misuse and abuse of process of the forum, there is no cause of action.
7. The Opp. alleged that complainant is not consumer as Opponent does not carry on any trading or commercial activity. The complaint is malafide and dishonest to the knowledge of complainant.
8. The Opp. alleged in para 9 of written statement that complainant has taken admission on 20.07.2010, course commenced on 2.8.2010 admission closed on 23.8.2010 and admission was cancelled on 27.9.2010.
9. The Opp. contended that due to cancellation seat remained vacant and as per AICTE rule refund of Rs.5,000/- was made to complainant. It is contended in para 10 of written statement that AICTE by public notice issued instruction regarding refund of fees.
10. The Opp. denied all allegation of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
11. The following points arise for our consideration.
Sr.No. | Points | Answer |
1. | Whether opponent is guilty for deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order ? | As per final order. |
REASON
12. We have heard learned counsel for both sides at length. Perused complaint, written statement, evidence in the form of affidavits, written arguments filed by both sides, all documents produced on record on behalf of complainant as well as opponent.
13. Admittedly complainant is a student and opponent is an Educational institute. Admittedly complainant has taken admission on 20.7.2010 course commenced on 2.8.2010 , admission process was closed on 23.8.2010 and complainant cancelled admission on 27.9.2010.
14. The complainant was taking education with Opp. during 2.8.2010 till cancellation of admission i.e. for about 50 days. The admission was taken without any entrance test. The complainant has decided to change the institute as he was selected on the basis of entrance test conducted by authorities.
15. The complainant requested for refund of amount, the Opp. alleged that the seat of complainant remained vacant so the amount was refunded as per AICTE Rules.
16. As per legal position if complainant cancelled admission after process of admission was completed and financial loss was caused to Opp. he could be deprived of the claim for refund.
17. We have carefully perused the public notice issued by UGC. As per the said notice the entire fees collected from the student after deduction of Rs.1000/- towards process fee shall be refunded in case the seat which was vacant, had been filed up by other candidate.
18. We are of considered view that, the burden to prove that Opp. was subjected to financial loss lies on the Opponent. The Opp. was under an obligation to prove on the basis of documentary evidence that the seat remained vacant after cancellation of the admission by complainant.
19. The opponent has accepted total amount of Rs.2,05,000/- from complainant towards fees. It is necessary that Opp. should show by evidence that, loss was caused financially due to cancellation of admission by complainant. We hold that Opp. failed to prove financial loss by proper evidence.
20. The retaining of the fees of Rs.2,00,000/- by an Educational institution without rendering service is an example of unjust enrichment by opponent. The Opp. was also under an obligation to justify the charging of such huge fees and loss caused due to cancellation of admission.
21. The record shows that complainant submitted application to Opp. for deducting 5 % amount towards cancellation. As the complainant studied in the college for a period between 2.8.2010 to 26.9.2010. Opp. is entitle for proportionate reasonable fees. We are of the view Opp. is entitle to charge 25000/- and refund Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant. The Opp. is liable to pay interest at 9 % per annum on the said amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from 27.9.2010 till realisation of the amount . As the decision of cancellation was taken by complainant it would not be proper to direct Opp. to pay compensation for mental agony to the complainant as prayed by him, However complainant repeatedly called upon the Opp. for refund of the money, and was required to file complaint , he is entitle for cost of Rs.7,500/- ( Seven thousand & five hundred ) from Opp.
22. In the result , we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. RBT Complaint No. 331/2012 is partly allowed.
2. The Opponent Narsee Monjee Institute is directed to refund the
amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. from
27.09.2010 to complainant within two months.
3. The Opponent is directed to pay cost of the complaint Rs.7,500/-
( Seven thousand & five hundred ) to complainant.
4. Copy of this order be sent to both parties.
