BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30TH April 2014
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMMON ORDER IN
C.C.Nos. 85, 86 and 87/2013
CC.No.85/2013
(Admitted on 23.3.2013)
1) Master Yashwanth
S o Mahadeva,
Aged about 17 years,
Since Minor Represented by
His uncle i.e., Complainant No.2: Sri Srinivasa.
2) Sri.M.V. Srinivasa,
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 35, (Farmer),
Both are residing at
No.4051, 2 Block,
Nagegowda Extension,
Kushalnagar,
Coorg District. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri V.Ravi Kumar)
CC.No.86/2013
(Admitted on 23.3.2013)
1) Kum. Manaswini,
D o K.V. Ravi,
Aged about 17 years,
Since Minor Represented by
His father i.e., Complainant No.2: Sri K.V. Ravi.
2) Sri.K.V. Ravi,
S/o Late Veerappadevru,
Aged about 50 years,
Both are residing at:
No.15 138, B Block,
S.S. Road, K.R. Nagara,
Mysore District. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri V.Ravi Kumar)
CC.No.87/2013
(Admitted on 23.3.2013)
1) Master Mokshith,
S o M.Mallesh
Aged about 17 years,
Since Minor Represented by
His father i.e., Complainant No.2: Sri M.Mallesh.
2) Sri.M.Mallesh,
S/o Late Mallappa,
Aged about 47 years, (School Teacher),
Both are residing at:
Uppar New Street, Bettadapura,
Piryapatna Taluk
Mysore 571 102. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri V.Ravi Kumar)
VERSUS
1. Principal,
Alva s Pre-University College,
Moodbidri, Dakshina Kannada.
2. Chairman,
Alva’s Education Foundation,
Moodbidri, Dakshina Kannada. .. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. M.R. Ballal)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. All the Complainants filed the above complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming similar reliefs. In order to save the time as well as for the sake of convenience we have taken up all the cases together and passed common order as under:
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainants in C.C.No.85/2013 stated that in order to pursue Pre-University course in science (PCMB), he had approached the Opposite Party and also learnt that the Opposite party is having hostel facilities at nearest place called Vishala Nagara thinking that the Opposite Parties institution may provide good service to the complainants to pursue studies. It is also stated that the complainant No.1 is an Astma patient from rural background and completed his SSLC and believed that the Opposite party got good teaching and accommodation visited the office of the Opposite Party on 28.5.2012 and as per instructions of the Opposite party admitted the complainant No.1 by paying Rs.30,460/- and further Rs.19,000/- as hostel fees and balance to be paid at the time of admission to hostel and opposite party issued the allotment slip on the above said day. It is further stated that the admission will be finalized and the candidate considered as admitted only after submitting the documents mentioned in the prospectus and also stated that the college will be commenced on 18.6.2012 and student has to report in the hostel on 17.6.2012. In total the complainant paid Rs.49,660/- to the opposite parties but due to health condition the complainant expressed his uneasiness and problem in the hostel to the opposite parties, since the opposite parties have not taken any interest the complainant has decided to quit the hostel at the cost of damaging his precious educational carrier. The opposite parties to refund the money but later refused to refund the same. Hence this complaint.
The Complainants in C.C.No.86/2013 stated that in order to pursue Pre-University course in science (PCMB), he had approached the Opposite Party and also learnt that the Opposite party is having hostel facilities at nearest place called Vishala Nagara thinking that the Opposite Parties institution may provide good service to the complainants to pursue studies. It is also stated that the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party No.1 on 18.5.2012 and paid Rs.38,260/- towards the tuition and hostel fees and it has mentioned in the allotment slip that the college will commence on 18.6.2012 and hostel will open on 16.6.2012. As per the direction of the Opposite Party, the complainant No.1 reported to the hostel on 16.6.2012 from the very first day itself the complainant expressed uneasiness and problems in the hostel to both warden as well as 1st complainant. The 1st complainant phoned to warden intimated the same to ensure the safety of his daughter but no steps were taken hence under the above situation decided to quit the hostel at the cost of damaging her precious educational career. On 3.8.2012 the complainant No.2 wrote a letter to Opposite party requesting for refund of his money but the opposite parties not refunded the money. Hence this complaint.
The Complainants in C.C.No.87/2013 stated that in order to pursue Pre-University course in science (PCMB), he had approached the Opposite Party and also learnt that the Opposite party is having hostel facilities. It is also stated that the complainant No.1 completed his SSLC and believed that the Opposite party got good teaching and accommodation visited the office of the Opposite Party on 18.5.2012 and as per instructions of the Opposite party admitted the complainant No.1 by paying Rs.49,460/- and balance to be paid at the time of admission to hostel and opposite party issued the allotment slip on the above said day. It is further stated that the admission will be finalized and the candidate considered as admitted only after submitting the documents mentioned in the prospectus and also stated that the college will be commenced on 18.6.2012. But due to health condition the complainant expressed his uneasiness and problem in the hostel to the opposite parties since the opposite parties have not taken any interest the complainant has decided to quit the hostel at the cost of damaging his precious educational carrier and on 23.6.2012 the complainant No.2 wrote a letter to Opposite party requesting for refund of his money but the opposite parties not refunded the money. Hence this complaint.
Feeling aggrieved by the above, the above complaints are filed before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay the entire money collected from the complainants respectively mentioned in their complaints and also sought for compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel filed version stated that, the complainants voluntarily withdrawn from the course offered by the Opposite Party not on account of any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. It is stated that the opposite party institution is a private trust managing several educational institution run without any Government Aid. The major portion of the money that is collected in the form of fees are utilized for the said purpose. In view of the above facts every student as well as his parent/guardian will be informed in advance as to the non-refund of fee paid in advance as a condition precedent for admission and only on their undertaking to such stipulations provide admission to the applicant intending to pursue education in the institution. The said stipulation is made only to avoid unforeseen financial burden to the institutions and also to spend for the projects of the entire year. The refund of fee paid by every student unwilling to avail the service on account of his own private reasons not on the part of the Opposite parties deficiency or whatsoever. It is further stated that the complainants voluntarily agreed to abide by the stipulation of the institutions for the admission. Therefore, non-refund of the advance fees paid is estopped from claiming back the fees paid after voluntarily withdrawn from the college. It is also seen that similar version has been filed in all the complaints.
III. 1. In support of the above complaints, all the respective Complainants are examined as CW-1 and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked under the ‘Ex.C’ series detailed in the annexure here below. Opposite Parties also examined and filed their counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked under the ‘Ex R’ series detailed in the annexure herebelow.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainants proved that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) to (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) to (iii):
In all the complaints it is admitted that the complainants were got admission to Opposite party institution and paid the fees as stated in their respective complaints and there is no dispute with regard to the payment of fees and acknowledgment of the same.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, on account of the deficiency on the part of the Opposite party institution the complainants could not continue their studies in Opposite Party institution and thereafter claimed refund of fees, the Opposite Party institution refused to refund the amount. Hence came up with the above complaints.
Opposite Party on the other hand contended that the complainants were withdrawn voluntarily and there is no deficiency on their part.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, there was no denial to provide service agreed upon by the Opposite Parties, when that being so, the entire burden lies upon the complainants to establish that there is a deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party institution. Except the self-serving statement of the complainants no such material evidence placed on record to prove the assertions of the complainants made in their respective complaints. It is a settled position of law that, when a complainants withdrawn from the institution voluntarily without there being any deficiency on the part of the opposite party institution, then there is no case for the complainants to claim the refund of amount apart from the above we also taken into consideration that our attention was drawn towards Appeal No. 1128 and 1129/2003 in its judgment dated 31.5.2013 in Revision Petition No.4464/2012 in a case Globsyn Business School Vs. Mayuri Ghosh held as follows:-
“Wherein institution are not getting any aid from the UGC and in the absence of any aid the circular issued by the UGC was not applicable and petitions has not committed any deficiency in refusing to refund of money.
Similarly in the instant case, the Opposite Party institution proved that they are not getting aid from the UGC and there is no deficiency whatsoever as alleged in the complaint. However, the complainants in turn failed to establish the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party institution in all three complaints.
Further in NAVDEEP SINGH vs. I.I.T.T. College of Engineering, Village Pojewal, District Nawanshahar and Ors. In which it was observed in Paragraph 6 as under:-
“6. The petitioner has neither controverted the assertion contained in the written statement of Respondent NO.1 that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the fact of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner”.
He has also placed reliance on VOLCVII – (1994-2) The PUNJAB LAW REPORTER – RAJ SINGH vs. THE MAHARSHIDAYANAND UNIVERSITY & Ors. In which it was observed in paragraph 10 as under.”
“10. Students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case. The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may suit him at a given time. For what has been noticed, the view taken in Madhavika Khurana’s case (supra) cannot stand scrutiny and consequently the same is over-ruled.
On over all material evidence available on record, as well as the various rulings relied by the Opposite party institution made us very clear that, the fees once tendered as per the fees schedule will not be refunded and the principles laid under the above citation applicable to the case on hand. We also observed that, there is no material evidence placed before this FORA to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the institutions except self-serving statements of the complainants. In the absence of the same we are declined to consider the complaints on hand and the complaints filed by the complainants are deserves to be dismissed. No order as to cost.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 12 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April 2014.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 – Mr.M.V.Srinivas – Complainant No.2 in CC.No.85.2013.
CW1 – Mr.K.V. Ravi – Complainant No.2 in CC.No.86.2013.
CW1 – Mr.M.Mallesh – Complainant No.2 in CC.No.87.2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.85/2013:
Ex C1 – Application & Registration fees paid receipt.
Ex C2 –Parent Copy /cash paid receipt.
Ex C3 –Seat allotment slip issued by Ops.
Ex C4 –Cash receipt issued by Ops.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.86/2013:
Ex C1 – Receipt/Parent copy of Bank challan.
Ex C2 – Seat allotment slip/receipt issued by Ops Hostel
Ex C3 – Copy of letter issued to OP’s by complainant.
Ex C4 –Courier receipt and acknowledgement.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.87/2013:
Ex C1 – Receipt/Parent copy of Bank challan.
Ex C2 – Cash receipt issued by OP’s.
Ex C3 – Seat allotment slip/receipt issued by Ops Hostel
Ex C4 – Request letter issued by complainant No.2 & Postal acknowledgment.
Ex C5 – Legal notice got issued by Complainant No.2.
Ex C6 – Reply Notice got issued by OP’s.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties in CC.No.85, 86 & 87/2013:
RW1 – Ramesh Shetty H, Principal of O.P.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties in CC.No.85 & 86/2013:
Ex R1: Copy of letter of 2nd Complainant.
Ex R2: Copy of application for admission.
Ex R3: Copy of the Bond.
Ex R4: Copy of Undertaking by student and parent.
Ex R5: Prospectus for the year 2012-13.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties in CC.No. 87 /2013:
Ex R1: Copy of application for admission.
Ex R2: Copy of the Bond.
Ex R3: Copy of Undertaking by student and parent.
Ex R4: Prospectus for the year 2012-13.
Dated:30.4.2014 PRESIDENT
