Date of Filing:14.12.2007<br /> Date of Order: 25.04.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2493 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Thukaram Rao,<br /> Sahukar Chennaiah Badavane,<br /> Guttal Colony, <br /> Mandya. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Principal,<br /> M.V.J College of Engineering,<br /> Near ITPB, Whitefield,<br /> Channasandra, <br /> Bangalore-560 067. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant claiming refund of Rs.1,95,000/- and costs.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had admitted his son Bharath Kumar in the opposite party college in Engineering Degree (B.E. Telecom) on 16/7/2007. At the time of admission the complainant was advised to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- On the request he was advised to pay Rs.70,000/- as cash and Rs.1,25,000/- by D.D drawn in favour of the college. As per the advise the cash amount of Rs.70,000/- has paid immediately to ensure allotment of seat for his son on 29/6/2007. The complainant was instructed that he should bring a DD for Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of the college at the time of admission. The college authorities did not issued any receipt for both the payments made by him. In the meantime the son of complainant had also appeared for CET Examination conducted by the Government of Karnataka, was allotted with a seat under General Merit and directed to join at Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagaram. Thereafter, the complainant along with his son contacted the authorities of MVJ Engineering College and requested to refund the monies paid by him since his son is allotted with a seat by CET Cell. However, they have threatened with grave consequences if they continue to demand refund of the amount. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party by RPAD. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version stating that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, as the admission is with regard to one Sri. Bharath Kumar, who is not a complainant before this Forum, but it is only Thukaram Rao the father of Bharath Kumar. Bharath Kumar who is son of complainant got admitted in the opposite party college for the I year course of the Telecom Engineering for the year 2007-08. It is true that he has paid Rs.1,25,000/- as tuition fees, vide D.D No.137256 dated 14/7/2007. It is submitted that, in the application that is to be submitted by the students with the signature of the student and his parents, there is a declaration which reads:-<br /> “Declaration of parents or Guardian”<br /> .......... I shall not claim, under any circumstances and reasons for refund of amount paid to the institution in connection with the admission even though the candidate withdraws his/her candidature and admission at any point of time. No correspondence of mine need been entertained in this behalf. Also I will not withdraw/cancel the admission during the course of my ward’s study and if I do so, it will be at my own risk and I assure to pay the fees for subsequent year and clear all dues, I owe to the Institutions”. <br /> <br /> The question of refunding the amount to the complainant as sought for does not arise. The students who have already been admitted to the college shall pay the rest of the tuition fee in advance. In case where the student wishes to discontinue the course to which he has joined, the amount paid will not be refunded. If the same was informed in advance, the said seat could have been allotted to any other students who were desperately trying to get themselves admitted to the opposite party college. But now as the son of the complainant has discontinued the course in the middle of the academic year, it would not be possible to get in other student to fill up the vacancy. Due to discontinuation of the course in the middle of the academic year results in financial loss to the institution as the seat will remain vacant. It is not true that the opposite party college authorities did not issue any receipt for the said amount of Rs.70,000/- paid by the complainant. In view of all these reasons, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> Whether the opposite party institution be <br /> directed to refund the amount of the <br /> complainant? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint, documents and affidavits. It is an admitted case that the son of complainant Bharath Kumar got admitted in opposite party college for the first year course of engineering for the year 2007-08. It is also admitted case of the parties that, the complainant has paid sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as tuition fee vide D.D No.137256 dated 14/7/2007. The opposite party college has no dispute whatsoever that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of D.D. It is the case of the opposite party that question of refund the amount paid by the complainant does not arise. In case where the student wishes to discontinue the course the amount paid will not be refunded. It is the case of the complainant that he has paid Rs.70,000/- by cash to the college authorities on 29/6/2007. But the opposite party college has denied this payment. It is the defence of the opposite party that the payment of Rs.70,000/- by cash is false and baseless and therefore, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. So, in view of the denial of this fact it is for the complainant to prove or establish that he has paid Rs.70,000/- by cash. Admittedly, the complainant had not obtained any receipt from the college authority for having paid Rs.70,000/- in cash. The complainant has not even disclosed to whom he has paid the amount. The complainant has no specific proof about the payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash. He has not come with particulars of the payment made in cash. No doubt the complainant has produced statement of account of State Bank of Mysore, Gupthalu Branch. This statement of account shows that on 25/6/2007 the complainant has withdrawn Rs.50,000/- and on 28/6/2007 he has withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from his account. But mere showing that he had withdrawn amount from his account from the Bank does not establish in law that he has paid the amount of Rs.70,000/- in cash to the opposite party college. Therefore, in the absence of proper proof and document, it is not possible to say that the complainant has proved payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash to the college. As regards the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- by D.D there is absolutely no dispute. The opposite party college has clearly admitted the receipt of D.D from the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that, his son had appeared for CET examination, was allotted seat under GM quota at Gousiya College of Engineering, Ramangar and accordingly, he has joined the Gousiya College of Engineering. The complainant contacted the opposite party college authorities and requested them to refund the amount paid by him since his son got admission to through the CET cell. It is the case of the complainant that he had pleaded with the opposite party college authorities that he is a poor agriculturist and he has paid the amount out of borrowing money from the friends. He submitted that his son and himself visited the opposite party college authorities on many occasions and pleaded with them to refund the amount. However, the opposite party college authorities did not refund the amount. Since the opposite party college authorities failed to refund the amount he approached this Forum with complaint that opposite party college be directed to refund the amount. The Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation, it is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. The college authorities taken defence that the question of refund of amount does not arise. They are relying the declaration given by the parents that they shall not claim under any circumstances for refund of amount paid to the institution in connection with the admission even though the candidate withdraws the admission. I am of the opinion that the opposite party college institution cannot take benefit of declaration given by the parents. The opposite party college cannot take undue advantage of the situation and the opposite party cannot deny the refund of the amount paid by the complainant. Since the son of the complainant got admission through the CET cell and the son of the complainant got seat in Gousiya Engineering College, Ramanagar. Therefore, the complainant was forced to withdraw the admission from the opposite party college. The son of the complainant had filed application for admission to the opposite party college before declaration of CET results. Therefore, after getting the allotment of seat through the CET Cell, he got admission in Gousiya College. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount. The opposite party college has not proved by producing records or documents that seat allotted to the son of complainant fell vacant throughout the academic year 2007-08. So, under these circumstances, the opposite party college cannot deny refund of the amount. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party college to refund Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant immediately. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party MVJ College of Engineering, Channasandra is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order. If the opposite party college fails to pay the amount within 15 days in that case, the amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order till payment. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the present litigation to the complainant.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />