Date of Filing:16.04.2009 Date of Order:5.12.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1994 OF 2009 M.S. Nethra D/o M. Srinivasulu R/at No.18, II Stage 4th Main, M.S.H. Layout Anandnagar Bangalore. Complainant V/S Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology Cholanagar, Hebbal R.T. Nagar, Bangalore-560 032. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of Rs.38,540/-. The facts of the case are that, the complainant took admission in the opposite party institution during 2007-08 a Common Entrance Test for the first year Bachelor of Engineering course in Biotechnology Branch. The complainant after completing first and second semester during 2007-08 took admission in the opposite party institution for third semester for the year 2008-09. At the time of admission for third semester the complainant paid total sum of Rs.38,540/- under receipt No.4805 dated 18/08/2008. After taking admission to third semester complainant in order to change the branch and institution sought no objection from the opposite party. The opposite party by letter dated 23/08/2008 accorded permission to the complainant for change of institution. The complainant then took admission for third semester in Information Science with Atria Institute of Technology. The complainant informed thee matter to the opposite party and sought for refund of Rs.38,540/- paid towards admission fee. Opposite party though promised to refund the amount has so far not obliged in spite of several requests. Therefore, opposite party is required to refund the entire admission fee of Rs.38,540/-. 2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through RPAD. Opposite party put in appearance through Advocate and filed defence version stating that, opposite party issued NOC only on the condition that the strength of the particular branch shall not come below 75% as per the rules and regulations of Visveswaraiah Technological University. Any student who discontinued din the middle of the course shall pay the fee to the concerned college. Opposite party issued NOC to the complainant only on humanitarian ground. The complainant neither sought for refund nor the opposite party promised to refund any amount. As per the regulations of Visveswaraiah Technological University, the complainant has to pay balance two year fee to the opposite party college. Looking from any angle opposite party is not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. Therefore, opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Perused the complaint and documents. Arguments are heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the fee? REASONS 5. The complainant herself has produced a letter addressed to the Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology. With this letter she has only requested for return of documents which she had submitted. She has stated in the letter dated 06/09/2008 that she is studying in third semester of Biotechnology and requested to return back of the document and also requested to give letter of her attendance of the third semester. In this letter, the complainant never requested for refund of the fee. As per the case of the complainant she herself voluntarily left the course with the opposite party college with an intention to join another college and she wanted to change her branch from Biotechnology to Information Science. So as per own decision the complainant took all her original documents from the opposite party college and had taken admission in the Atria Institute of Technology. Therefore, absolutely no case of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party institution. The opposite party institution never guilty of rendering deficiency in service. Therefore, the refund of fee paid for the third semester by the opposite party institution does not arise. The Honble State Commission in a judgment rendered in Appeal No.509/2007 on 17/04/2007 between Ashok Vashisht Vs. Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Sciences, it has been ordered as under:- It is not in dispute that the daughter of the complainant was admitted to OP-1 institution being selected by C.E.T Cell. It is also not in dispute that the complainants daughter attended the classes for about three weeks. From this it is seen that the daughter of the complainant herself made a request to the OP to refund the money by canceling her admission. From these facts it is seen that though OP-1 institution is willing to provide the service which it had undertaken, the complainant herself did not want to avail the said service. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. In the result, we pass the following:- ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The above decision of Honble State Commission is in all force applicable to the facts of the present case also. Therefore, there is no scope to order the opposite party institution to refund the fee. The complainant has failed to prove her case. Therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. No order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER rhr.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
