Orissa

Rayagada

CC/132/2019

Sri sasmita Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal Sri Chaitanya Educations Institution - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__132_______/2019                                    Date.    10    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Smt.   Sasmita   Acharya, W/O: Suryanarayana  Mishra,  East Coast Railway Colony,   Po/Dist:Rayagada(Odisha) 765  001.

                                                                        ….  Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The Principal, Sri Chaitanya  Educational  Institution, Sri Kalyan Chakravarthy Educational   Memorial  Trust,  Satyam Campus, At: Boyapalem,  Visakahapatnam  Urban,  State: Andhra  Pradesh.

                                                                        …Opposite  Parties.

 

 

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri  D.Ravi  Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps :- Set exparte.

                                                                              J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes emerges out of the grievances raised by the  complaint petition filed by

The above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for

Non refund of  fees amount a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- course  fee due to  non Study  in the above

institution  for which the  complainant sought  for redressal of the grievances raised by the

complainant.

                

On being noticed the O.Ps. authorized agent  Sri S.Sankar Rao   was appeared on Dt. 28.01.2020  before the Commission  in person   to defend the case. Thereafter  neither entering in to appear before the commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  11 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 2 years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the Act. Hence the O.Ps. are  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard learned counsel for the complainant.  Perused  the  record  filed by the parties.

                                                Findings.

During the course of exparte hearing  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as the deposit  cash receipt bearing  No.91233580 Dt.01.04.2019 a sum of Rs.500/-,  towards course fees.   Another  receipt  No.91233581 Dt.01.04.2019 for Rs.5,000/- towards  Tution fees.  Other  receipt No. 111913295  Dt.4.8.2019  a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards  Hostel Fees. Another receipt  No.111913296  Dt.4.8.2019  a sum of Rs.30,000/-  towards  Course /tution fees.  Other  receipts  No.111308759  Dt. 01.05.2019  a sum of Rs.25,000.00   towards  Hostel  fees.  Another  receipt  No. 111308760  Dt.1.5.2019   a sum  of Rs.25,000/- towards   Course /Tution fees.  Another receipt No.111308761  Dt.1.5.2019  a sum of Rs. 5,000/-  towards  Pocket  money.   Another  receipt  No.111308762  Dt.1.5.2019  a sum of Rs.11,500/-  towards  uniform /Akash books .

Total a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- was received by the O.Ps. from the complainant  towards course fees, Mess fees, Pocket money (copies of the money receipts filed in this District commission  which are marked as Annexure-I   to  Annexure-8).

The main grievance of the complainant was that  her daughter Miss Sneha Mishra   had been  effected with skin allergy namely  “Tinea Corporis”  which is also  known as Ring worm  is  a superficial fungal infection  of the arms and legs, just after a short stay of one month in the hostel.  So  Miss  Sneha  Mishra  had  left the  institution  and not continued the course of  + 2  in  the  O.Ps  institution and no service had   provided  by the O.Ps  to Miss Sneha Mishra   and had  not refunded the deposited amount till date. Hence the  complaint  petition for refund of deposited amount.

On perusal of the complaint  this Distict commission found the O.Ps made mischief’s and  play with career   of the complainant which is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the commission   whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in non refunding the fees  which was received by the O.P. without any service  as per the  provisions laid down under section 39 of the  C.P. Act,2019.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the grievances of the complaint which amounts to  deficiency in service  as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the commission  claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps  jointly and severally liable.

District Commission  observed   after receipt of the grievances, no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring refund of deposited fees  as alleged. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service.

            It is held and  reported  in C.P.R-2009(1) page No.269 the hon’ble  State Commission, Andhra Pradesh where in observed “Where  complainant having chosen to take admission in another college demanded his money deposited  by way of refund, it was deficiency in service on part of the O.P. in not refunding  the  amount”.

            Further it is held  and reported in C.P.R-2009(1) page No. 340 the hon’ble State Commission, Chennai where in observed “Denial of refund of tution fees to a student who withdraw from admission without joining the  class  amounts to  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service”.

            Again  it is held and  reported in C.P.R. 2006(2) page No.97 the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi where in observed  “ No educational institution, centre, or university can forfeit the amount received  by it  at  the time of admission in case it has not provided the  service  for which consideration was meant”.

            Further  it is held and reported  in C.P.R.2006(2) page No. 357 the Hon’ble State Commission,Pondichecy where in observed “Where a student withdraws  admission  from institution full amount of fee has to be refunded”.

            Basing on the  above citations of the  Hon’ble Commission  this commission allowed this case in part.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

            In  resultant  the complaint petition stands allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps.

            The O.Ps. are  ordered to refund fees  amount a sum of  Rs.1,07,000/- with  interest  @ Rs.9% p.a. from the date of respective  deposit till realization   to the complainant  inter alia to pay Rs.2,000/- towards  litigation expenses.

                We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.P. directing  him to stop such a practice  forthwith and not to repeat in future. 

The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days  from the date of  receipt of this order failing which an interest  @ Rs.18% per annum  would  accrue on the above  amount . from  the date of  repective  deposit till  realization. Service the copies of the order to the parties on free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.            Pronounced on this             2nd  day of   December, 2021.

 

                                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT