COMPLAINT FILED ON: 09.12.2010
DISPOSED ON: 01.03.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
DATED THIS THE 1ST MARCH 2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.2892/2010
Complainant | B.N. Saraswathi, No.42, “Srikari” Behind Apporva Castle, Sapthagiri Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore – 560 097. In Person V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Principal, Maharani Lakshmi Ammanni College for Women, Malleshwaram 18th Cross, Bangalore. Ex-Parte |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to refund an amount of Rs.18,480/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:
Her daughter A. Chaitra appeared for the CET examination during 2010 conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority to get admitted to B.E. Course. The process of allotment of seats was delayed due to various reasons on the part of the KEA. Pending finalization of seat allotment, the complainant got her daughter A. Chaitra admitted to the first year BCA course at OP’s college, by paying requisite fee of Rs.18,480/- on 19.05.2010. It is stated that during the admission process the complainant had informed OP that her daughter had taken up the CET examination and in case she is selected for the BE course she will join the same and will not take the BCA course with OP’s college. The complainant’s daughter was selected for the BE course and was allotted the RR Institute of Technology, Bangalore and she joined the BE course. The complainant’s daughter had not attended the class for a single day in the OP’s college and she did not take the uniform also. Since her daughter did not take up the BCA course, the complainant sought refund of fees and uniform charges from OP college and wrote letter on 12.07.2010 to the Principal that effect. OP accepted the request letter and informed that she will refer the request to the board and complainant can approach her after few days. After few days OP informed that the college will be refunding the amount after deducting 50% of the amount paid. Complainant refused the offer and demanded for full refund. The complainant approached the Consumer Rights Education & Awareness Trust with a request to take up the matter with OP. CREAT wrote to the OP suggesting an amicable settlement. There was no response from the OP, hence the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and approached with this complaint seeking necessary reliefs.
3. Inspite of service of notice OP failed to appear; hence placed ex-parte.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit evidence.
5. Heard from complainant side.
6. After perusing the complaint averments and the affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced it becomes clear that the complainant daughter A. Chaitra appeared for CET examination during 2010 conducted by Karnataka Examination Authority to get admission to BE course. Since the process of allotment of seats in the Engineering Colleges was delayed, the complainant’s daughter admitted to the first year BCA course at the OP’s college by paying requisite fee of Rs.18,480/- with a condition that if her daughter is selected for the BE course in the CET selection process she will not take the BCA course with the OP. In the CET process selection the daughter of the complainant was allotted BE seat in the RR Institute of Technology, hence she joined the BE course. After admission in OP’s college to the first year BCA course, the complainant daughter has not at all attended a single day and she also not taken uniform. The complainant’s request to refund the amount was not honoured by OP. There was no any justification on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount paid towards the fee. The complainant got her daughter admitted to the BCA with a condition that if she gets BE seat in the CET selection process she would not continue the BCA course. If OP was not inclined to refund the amount in the event of complainant’s daughter getting BE seat in the CET selection process, at the time of admission itself OP could have intimated the complainant. The very fact of OP remaining silent for the conditional admission clearly goes to show that OP has agreed to refund the amount in case of complainant’s daughter not continuing BCA course at OP’s college. Since the complainant’s daughter has not attended a single day in the OPs institute and has not provided the uniform, OP is bound to refund the amount received. By retaining the amount without providing any service that is giving education in the institution of OP to the complainant’s daughter amounts to unjust enrichment. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte goes a long way to hold that OP is admitting the averments made in the complaint. The act of OP in not refunding the amount, amounts to deficiency in service.
7. In 2011 CTJ 346 (CP)(SCDRC) GGS College of Modern Technology Vs. Mrs. Kusum Arora it was held that “The Educational Institutions should not act as commercial establishments and retain the fees of students withdrawing from them.”
The AICTE had issued instructions / Public Notice on 19.04.2007 to all the Technical Institutions, Universities including deemed Universities imparting technical education regarding matters concerning charging of fees, refund of fees and other student related issues. Similarly the University Grants Commission had also issued Public Notice on 23.04.2007 as under:
“PUBLIC NOTICE
It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions Deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificates in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. The Commission is of the view that the institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institutions leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.”
The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students / candidates in the event of student / candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution / University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme.
Under these circumstances we are of the view that in the light of the principles laid down in the above case and the guidelines issued by AICTE and University Grants Commission. OP is entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards processing fee and refund the balance amount to the complainant. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.17,480/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Under the circumstances parties bear their own costs.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 1st day of March – 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Snm:
