BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL AT VIJAWAYADAF.A.No.194 OF
2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.104 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTURBetween:
The Principal
Appellant/opposite party
Pasupuleti
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/ Counsel for the Respondent M/s
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri
***
1. The respondent filed complaint before the District Forum seeking for refund of ANU fees of `10,000/-, `36,000/- being reimbursed by the Government to the appellant-college, `45,000/- being the fee for 3rd year and 4th year and `20,003/- towards interest @24% p.a. from3.06.2010 till 2.05.2010 besides a sum of `50,000/- towards compensation and costs.
2. The respondent joined in PHB-Pharmacy in the year`30,200/- towards tuition fee, `5,000/- towards counselling fees. On 8.11.2008 the appellant-college collected `5,500/- from the respondent. On 23.11.2009 the respondent paid an amount of `10,000/- towards ANU fees and `36,200/- on 11.01.2010 towards 2nd year fee and `45,000/- on 3.06.2010 towards the fee for 3rd year and 4th year. The Commissioner of Technical Education instructed the appellant-college not to collect the fee from the respondent and the respondent intended to join in another college. The appellant-college had shown the respondent as hosteller though the complainant was a day scholar.
3. The appellant resisted the claim on the premise that the respondent submitted at the time of admission fake income and residence certificates. The respondent intended to discontinue the course and claimed for issuance of transfer certificate for which the appellant requested her to settle all dues including the balance course fee. The respondent paid the fee and balance fee on 3.06.2010 and the appellant-college requested the respondent to collect the transfer certificate the next day. The respondent with mala fide intention defamed the appellant-college and two months thereafter with the intervention of the elders, the respondent paid the fee and settled all dues and collected the transfer certificate.
4. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant collecting entire course fee against the circular issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education and not returning the amount to the respondent amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-college.
6. The opposite party-college has filed appeal contending that the respondent received the fee of `75,200/- from the appellant-college under receipt, ExB9 and the District Forum ignored the document. It is contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the matter involves recovery of money.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
8. The respondent joined the appellant-college in the year 2008 in Pharmacy Course and in the year, 2010 she opted for transfer to `30,200/- towards tuition fee, `5,000/- towards `5,500/-. On 23.11.2009 the respondent paid an amount of `10,000/- towards ANU fees and `36,200/- on 11.01.2010 towards 2nd year fee and `45,000/- on 3.06.2010 towards the fee for 3rd year and 4th year. The Commissioner of Technical Education instructed the appellant-college not to collect the fee from the respondent.
9. The commissioner issued proceedings dated 27.08.2009 instructing all the principals of engineering colleges not to collect tuition fee for the entire course in advance and to hand over transfer certificate to the student transferred to another college . The letter reads as under:
“It is brought to the notice of this office that the managements of the most of the Professional Colleges in the State are insisting the students for payment of the fees for the certificates handed over to them at the time of admission.
In the above circumstances, the Commissioner of Technical Education, being the nodal agency hereby direct the managements of all the Professional Colleges in the State not to insist for payment of the full course fee in respect of such students who want to discontinue the course at the middle and to handover the original certificates to them immediately or otherwise, the matter will be viewed seriously and necessary steps will be initiated against the managements in accordance with law.”
10. The appellant-college in derogation of the instruction of the commissioner had collected fee in advance for the third year and fourth year and insisted on the respondent to settle the dues for issuing the transfer certificate. Sometime later, the transfer certificate was issued to the respondent. She claimed for refund of the fee reimbursed by the government pertaining to her to the appellant-college and the fee the appellant collected from her for the third year and fourth year of the pharmacy course. In the No-due certificated issued to the respondent it is mentioned that she is required to pay fee for the third and fourth year pharmacy course in
11. The appellant contends that it had paid entire amount of `75,200/- to the respondent under receipt ExB9 and the District Forum ignored ExB9 and allowed the complaint. The District Forum disbelieved the version of the appellant in regard to payment of the amount to the respondent, for there has been no pleading in the written version and the appellant cannot be believed to have paid in cash the amount of `75,200/-. Paragraph 9 of the order reads as under:
“The opposite party in with the interventions of the respectable peoples representative and the complaint, after two months, returned to the college of the opposite party and settle all the dues and collected her Transfer Certificate”. It is not the case of the opposite party that it gave reply to Ex.A-6 notice. Exs.B-12 and B-13 are with the opposite party from the beginning to show that it paid Rs.75.”
12. The appellant had not averred in the written version that it made payment of `75,200/- to the respondent. The appellant had not chosen to give reply to the notice of the respondent wherein she claimed for refund of the amount reimbursed by the Government and the fee charged by the appellant for the third and fourth year of pharmacy course. The District Forum rightly observed that an institute as the appellant-college cannot be heard to make payment of as much amount as Rs.75 There was no response from the appellant for the notice of the appellant. We do not see any reason to interfere with the finding recorded on the aspect of the appellant retaining the claiming to have paid to the respondent.
13. The respondent had left the college on her own accord and she left the appellant-college in the midst of the course. The amount was reimbursed by the government. The respondent has not stated as to when the Government reimbursed the fee pertaining to her to the appellant-college. While granting compensation many are to be considered.
14. The is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.
15. The Supreme held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable. In “ change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held “While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”.
16. The order of the District Forum as regards the relief relating to interest and compensation is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the District Forum as compensation is set aside and the date from which the interest payable by the appellant is modified from 26.11.2010 as the date of filing of the complaint.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay an amount of `77,700/- with interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and `1,000/- towards costs. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.20.03.2013
కెఎంకె*
