CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No 328/08

 

Tuesday the 28^th day of June, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : Reeba P Varghese,

                                                               Pallipurath House,

                                                               Mooledam PO, Kottayam.

 

                                                            2) Deepu John George,

                                                                Pulikkotil House,

                                                                Nehru Nagar,

                                                                Kunnamkulam.

                                                               (Adv. M.J. Joseph Mannarath)

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : The Principal,

                                                                Odaiyappa College of Engineering and

                                                                Technology, Theni-625531,

                                                                 Tamil Naddu.

                                                                (Adv. Bobby John)

                                                             2) P.G. Iype,

                                                                  Director,

                                                                  M.G. Academy, Pallam,

                                                                  Kottayam. 

                                                                (Adv. Josekutty Mathew)

 

 

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainants’ parents approached the 2^nd opposite party, the authorised consultant of 1^st opposite party for getting admission for the petitioners for the B.E. Mechanical course. The 2^nd opposite party recommended to join the 1^st opposite party institution. After checking the status of the college from the Anna University Website and AICTE website the petitioners remitted advance for reserving seats for B.E Mechanical course of 2008-2009. Petitioners deposited the original certificates and paid the amount fixed for seat reservation on 23/5/2008. The petitioners took admission for B.E. Mechanical by paying Rs.67,500/- towards fee for 1 year and Rs.5000/- towards hostel rent for 1 year. Total Rs.72,500/- and obtained receipt for the same. The petitioners were asked to report on 2/7/08 for orientation classes and the petitioners reported along with parents and were not satisfied with the hostel accommodation arrangements. For three rooms there were no fittings to lock the room from inside and for one room there was no provision to lock the room from outside. The parents of the petitioner informed this matter to the 1^st opposite party and the institution assured to repair the locks. Immediately after the parents of the petitioner left, the 1^st year students were subjected to severe ragging. All the problems were reported in time. It was after one week the opposite party began to take action. After 1 week all the 1^st year students went home on leave. The other students inspite of ragging decided to continue in the college. But the petitioner had serious mental problems and they were taken to the Psychiatrist for several sittings. Then the petitioner was summoned by the opposite party and the Secretary and they were told that there were no seats for mechanical branch and that they had to join for the Bio Medical Branch. The petitioner told the 1^st opposite party that they wanted mechanical only and they have taken admission by paying the full fees. Then the 1^st opposite party began to use all types of harassment and finally the petitioner said that they would go away. That all admission norms of Govt. University and AICTE have been violated by 1^st counter petitioner on 26/9/08 when admission for the academic year 2008-2009 had already be closed. The petitioners were given original certificates and Rs.58,500/- only to each after making deductions under various heads. Hence the petitioners filed this petition claiming the balance fees Rs.14,000/- each, Rs. 10,000/- each for various trips that the petitioners and parents made to the college. Rs. 8000/- each towards consultation fee medical expenses etc, Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the mental agony and loss of 1 academic year.

Notice was served the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and both of them entered appearance and filed version separately. The 1^st opposite party came with the following main contentions.

1)      The cause of action did not arise in Kottayam. The cause of action arose at Theni where the institution is situated.

2)      Petitioners were admitted in 1^st year B.E. Mechanical course for the year 2008-09. They were never forced to change their course to Bio-Medical Branch. The allegation made by the petitioner that Institution had admitted more students in 1^st year B.E.Mechanical course imagination of the petitioners.

3)      The institution was started a few years back only, and the condition of the hostel and its doors, lock, are all in good condition.

4)      The Govt.of Tamil Nadu has law against ragging and it is imposed in all colleges and institutions. Because of the stringent measures provided in this law ragging is completely wiped out in all colleges and institution in Tamil Nadu. Petitioners have not reported the above said ragging to the Principal or the local police and they have no documentary evidence about the ragging incident. Petitioners were not subjected to ragging at all. The suffering, trauma, mental and physical torture, visit to the medical treatment, Psychiatrist treatment etc are not true.

5)      The petitioners attended classes on 8/9/08 to 13/9/08. The petitioners never gave any notice to the Principal that they were leaving the institution by dis-continuing the studies. Students left the institution without intimation. Two seats were lying vacant for the academic year 2008-09 and thereby this institution suffered loss of fees.

6)      The money was returned to the petitioners on their request they accepted the money and gave signed receipt to the management without any murmer.

The petitioners never suffered any mental or physical torture or agony because of the alleged ragging and therefore they are not entitled for any compensation. Therefore the 1^st opposite party prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.

            2^nd opposite party filed version with the following main points.

 

1)      It is true that the petitioner’s parent approached the 2^nd opposite party at this institution named M.G. Academy at Pallom, Kottayam District for arranging admission for B.E. Mechanical course in a suitable Engineering College. Since the 2^nd opposite party being an authorized agent of the 1^st opposite party, gave detailed information about the 1^st opposite party, college to the petitioners and gave assurance for arranging seats as they demanded. The petitioner was satisfied about the facilities of the 1^st opposite party college and informed their willingness to join the B.E. Mechanical course. Consequently the petitioners booked their seats for B.E. Mechanical course and gave an advance of Rs.5000/- each to the 2^nd opposite party on 23/5/08 at his institution at Pallom. Immediately the 2^nd opposite party informed the matter to the 1^st opposite party and accordingly the petitioners got admission at 1^st opposite party’s college.

2)      When the petitioner’s parents came to the 2^nd opposite party with such complaints, the 2^nd opposite party made an enquiry about the said allegation and understood that there was no such grave problem.

3)      The 2^nd opposite party arranged admission in B.E. Mechanical course and therefore no compensation can be sought against the 2^nd opposite party. Hence the 2^nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs.

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Ext.A1 to A5and Ext.B1

            Heard the counsels of both parties and perused the documents placed on record.   The 1^st opposite party’s counsel submitted that the cause of action did not arise in Kottayam. In the instant case, the 2^nd opposite party is in Kottayam District and there the complaint is maintainable in this forum.

            In the testimony of DW2 he admitted that the opposite parties collected Rs.72,000/- each from the petitioners. While arguing learned counsel for opposite parties admitted that they refunded to the petitioners the money after bonafide deductions, and that they accepted the money without any protest. The Ministry of Human Resources and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities shall refund the entire fee collected from the students after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- to the withdrawing student who has not attended the class. In this case the petitioners left the course after 1 week. So the petitioners have not received the service rendered by the opposite parties. In our view due to the aforesaid reason the opposite parties are not entitled to the consideration for the service. The opposite party institution contented that as the student left the institution without intimation, two seats were lying vacant for the academic year 2008-09 and thereby institution suffered loss of fees. Evidencing the said contention the opposite parties submitted the attendance register for the concerned period and it is marked as Ext.B1. On perusing Ext.B1 it is understood that 60 students were present in the said class and the petitioners remained absent after 6 days. But Ext.B1 is only a register maintained in the opposite party college and therefore it cannot be relied as it is possible to create such register for the purpose of this case. Opposite party institution has failed to produce any scrap of paper showing the number of seats allotted for B.E.Mechanical course and whether they have allotted admission to the admitted number of seats. The Ministry of Human Resources of Development and University Grants Commission decided that institutions and universities in the public interest shall maintain a waiting list of student or candidates in the event of student / candidate withdrawing before starting of the course, the wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat.   Here there is no evidence to prove that the opposite party institution has maintained such a waiting list and has done anything to fill the seats that became vacant due to the withdrawal of the petitioners. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Siymbiosis Institute of International Business, 1(2009)CPJ 3(NC) Revision Petition No.1336 of 2008 the Hon’ble Commission decided on 7^th November 2008 that the institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their institute. Further if student leaves the College or School he is entitled for the total refund except for a small registration fee say Rs.1000/-.

            In this case nothing is on record to prove that the opposite party institution suffered any loss due to the withdrawal of their petitioners. If the two seats remained vacant throughout the year as contented by the opposite parties, it is only due to non- maintaining of a waiting list as decided by the Ministry of Human Resources Development and University Grants Commission. As the petitioners withdrew from the opposite party institution immediately after their admission, the opposite party institution must refund the remaining amount of Rs.14,000/- after deducting a small registration fee of Rs.1000/-.

            The opposite parties have no case that the petitioners have joined another College after withdrawing from the opposite party institution. In our opinion, it is more probable that the petitioners might have withdrawn from the opposite party college due to ragging or due to the unbearable conditions that prevailed in the opposite party college. It is evident that the petitioners lost their one year due the acts of opposite parties. The opposite parties are not allowed to play with the career of students. From the facts and circumstances we find that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

             In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties will refund the withheld money of Rs. 14,000/- each after taking the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- to the complainants. The opposite party will also pay Rs.25,000/- each to the complainants for the loss of one academic year and Rs.2000/-each as litigation costs.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2011

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-                

                       

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-    

           

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-                                        

 

Ext.A1-Copy of Advocates notice sent by the petitioners to the opposite parties

Ext.A2-series the postal orders dtd 7/10/08

Ext.A3-series the original A/D cards

Ext.A4-Original course certificate issued by the opposite party college

Ext.A5-Original loan sanctioning paper

Ext.B1-The original attendance register of the opposite party

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.