BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT     

         Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member 

                SriG.SreenivasRao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR, (NALSAR),

                                                     Male Member

Wednesday the 02^nd day of February, 2011

CC. No. 33 of  2010

Between:

B. Laxman, S/o Sri Ramaiah,

Police Constable,

R/o Town Police Station,

Medak, Medak District                                 …..Complainant

And

Principal,   

Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalasala,

Bachupally Road, Opp: IBP Petrol Bunk Line,

Ameenpur Village, Patancheru (M),

Medak District.                                                 …….Opposite party

         This case came up for final hearing before us on 19.01.2011 in the presence of Mr. Fareed Khan, Advocate for the complainant and in the absence of Sri. T. Rajendra Prasad and Ch. Raghuram, Advocates for opposite party, upon hearing arguments of both sides heard, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

                          O R D E R

(Per Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, Male Member)

             This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 7,000/- (fee amount) Rs. 16,000/- towards medical expenses incurred and Rs. 2,500/- as compensation.

1.          The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a police constable bearing P.C. No. 1361, working in Medak town police station. His son master B.Srinivas secured 526 marks in SSC (X class) examination held in March 2009. That in the month of January 2009 the opposite party approached the complainant to join his son in their college for IIT, AIEEE, Eamcet coaching and the annual fees was Rs. 53,000/- only and demanded to pay just Rs. 5,000/- at that time. The complainant has refused to pay immediately as his son had not completed his education and further he was planning for the APRJC entrance examination. As the complainant’s son could not get through the APRJC entrance exam, he then approached the opposite party where in he met the Principal Mr. Ram Mohan having cell No. 9248070126 and Land line nos. 040-65999957 and 65999958 who advised him to fill up the necessary application for admission into the college.  Accordingly, the complainant did such formality for Intermediate M.P.C group with IIT Course. On receiving the application, the opposite party informed that Rs. 66,000/- would be charged as fee for one year. The complainant reminded that he was told to pay only Rs. 53,000/- at the earlier occasion. The opposite party refused to offer even a single rupee concession.  On 04.06.2009, the complainant visited the opposite party’s college to admit his son by paying Rs. 30,000/- as part of first installment towards fee and other expenses (details of fee Rs. 25,000/- tution fee, pocket money Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- for (5) text books). The complainant further submitted that due to hundreds of students with parents were awaiting their turn for admission, the college authorities have obtained our signatures on various forms hurriedly for admission without briefing the rules & regulations of the college. The complainant's son was allotted accommodation in room no. 310 at the fourth floor of the Hostel building of the college.

a)       The complainant also submitted that in the hostel due to unhygienic food, the complainant's son suffered severe stomach ache on the second day itself. The complainant brought his son and admitted in “Chary Hospital” at Medak. The doctor advised surgical operation to his son for which the complainant paid Rs. 15,000/- After 10 days the complainant visited the college and explained to the principal about the operation and requested to shift his son’s accommodation to first floor of the hostel building. The Principal vehemently refused and said that the students from Maharastra state are staying in the I floor and their parents will strongly protest for this. Due to denial by the Principal, the complainant convinced his son to continue staying in the IV floor of the hostel building.

b)      On 23.06.2009, the complainant's son while coming down on the small steps of the hostel building to visit for the lunch he slipped over the stair case. His son suffered sever pain and he was admitted in one “Balaji hospital”  for treatment.

On knowing this the complainant rushed from Medak to the hospital where his son was all alone without any attendant deputed from the college side. However, the complainant paid Rs.1000/- to the hospital and his son was discharged in the evening. He took him to his home at Medak. For 15 days the complainant’s son could not recover from illness. In this way the complainant’s son suffered, which affected his studies. The complainant therefore, wanted to have refund of Rs.30,000/- fees which he paid to the college. Whereas the college authorities have refunded Rs.23,000/- only and still Rs.7,000/- is due from the college side which they refused.  The complainant also returned the text books to the Principal in the presence of reception staff. The Principal also informed that nearly 35 students who left the college were not refunded at the rate of Rs.15,000/- to each student. The opposite party/Principal of the college also obtained the complainant’s signature on the reverse of the receipts as ‘final settlement’ So, in this way the corporate colleges visit the homes of the students and mesmerise to join their college and extract lot of money from the parents.

c)                     The complainant finally submitted that the he visited the college 18-20 times and nearly Rs.2500/- was spent for the expenses inaddition to Rs.16000/- incurred for medical treatment. Hence the opposite party is liable for necessary action by the forum to refund these amounts.

2 a)             The contention of the opposite party in his counter is that the complainant of the complaint is not maintainable under Law or on facts. The opposite party further submits that earlier to this present complaint the complainant filed CC.No.73 of 2009 before this Hon'ble Forum with the same facts and the case was dismissed by the forum for default i.e. because of non representation by either parties. But the Hon’ble forum entertained the same as new complaint with number  CC.No.33 of 2010. The opposite party also contended that the only alternative remedy to the complaint is to approach the Hon’ble State Commission by filing an appeal to restore the case. In these circumstances, the Principles of Resjudicata and Principles of Estoppel  are applicable. The opposite party also contended that considering the dismissed complaint as new complaint is erroneous and contrary to law. However, the opposite party submitted that the counter filed in the old case CC 73 of 2009 may be adopted as counter of the opposite party in the present case CC 33 of 2010 in the interest of justice. 

b)                Adding to the above the opposite party denied all allegations and averments of the complaint and the complainant is put to strict proof for the same. The opposite party submitted that the college authorities have not approached the complainant at his home and not requested him to pay an advance of Rs.5,000/- for the fee of the college. The opposite party also submitted that the complainant himself approached the opposite party to join his son and he paid Rs.30,000/- as part payment of the college fee which includes additional teaching, internal exam charges, laboratory charges, accommodation fees, mess charges, games etc., Out of Rs.30,000/- partpayment made, is inclusive of Rs.3000/- towards pocket money and Rs.2000/- for supply of text books, notes and relevant material. The opposite party also asserted that after informing the terms and conditions, the signature of the complainant was obtained on the application form and there was no necessity to submit the application form of the college on the same day, rather be submitted before the day fixed by the opposite party.

c)                The opposite party also contended that the student /son of the complainant informed the college staff about his suffering from stomach pain for which he is using the medicines as per the advice of his doctor. So on one day the complainant’s son expressed stomach pain and on information to his father, who came and took him to Medak. The opposite party also submits that the complainant has not filed documentary proof for the treatment and operation conducted to his son.

d)                The opposite party further contended that if the stomach pain was due to poisoned food of the hostel of opposite party, then the complainant would have taken his son to the nearby hospital at Patancheru itself but he took him to Khammam which is a false story. Further the complainant had not produced any document for the expenditure of Rs.15,000/- which he incurred for the treatment.

e)                The opposite party also asserts that the complainant has not met the Principal (OP) to request for shifting his son's accommodation from 4^th floor to 1^st floor by showing the condition of his son. Second time, when the student/son of complainant reported stomach pain on 23.06.2009, the college staff took him to

hospital at Bachupally for necessary treatment. The opposite party also submits that the complainant produced just two bills and has not produced any medical record purposefully and intentionally to suppress the true facts. The opposite party also contends that the complainant who is working in police department ought to have adopted such  illegal and blackmailing tactics.

f)                 The opposite party adds to the above that the complainant has not brought the illhealth condition of his son to the notice of the Principal/opposite party. The complainant approached the college saying that he wants to admit his son in the nearby college in his place and sought refund of Rs.30,000/- whereas the opposite party refunded Rs.23,000/- by deducting only Rs.5000/- and the complainant had not returned the text books etc., (which costs Rs. 2,000/-).

g)                The opposite party submits that suddenly when a student leaves the college, the said seat falls vacant, hence the opposite party is entitled to claim damages from the complainant for this and mental agony caused due to damage to the college reputation also.

h)                The opposite party strongly contended that the bills filed by the complainant are concocted documents on the face of it. In these bills neither names nor vehicle numbers mentioned and in most of the bills even dates were not mentioned and in some bills only month and year mentioned.

i)       The opposite party admitted that only two students left the college but not 35 students as submitted by complainant, and the college offers best facilities and is a popular institution in the area.

j)               The opposite party also submits that 3/4^th of the amount (college fee) had been refunded to the complainant on humanitarian sympathy and the complainant is not entitled any more refund. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, so the present case may please be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses incurred by them.

3.               In support of the claim, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A.38 documents. The opposite party has not submitted any document. Further the counsel for the complainant prayed to treat written arguments as oral arguments and the counsel for the opposite party not represented for hearing, but submitted, written arguments to consider as oral arguments also.

4.     Now, the points to be considered in the instance case are:

                  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, if so, what relief ?

Point:

5.             i) The complainant joined his son in the opposite party’s college having hostel facility for intermediate course with IIT coaching on 05.6.2009 by paying part payment of Rs.30,000/- towards college fee including hostel fee and text book charges. But on the second day, the son of the complainant suffered stomach ache and he was taken to a hospital at Medak for treatment. On the advice of the doctor an operation (Appendicectomy) was performed for his son which incurred an expenditure of Rs.15,000/-. After 10- days the complainant visited the college and requested the principal/opposite party to shift his son's accommodation from 4^th floor to 1^st floor of the hostel building which the principal refused bluntly. Thus student/son of the complainant continued staying in hostel.

ii)                On 23.6.2009 while coming down the stair case which has small steps, the student/son of the complainant slipped and injured. The college staff admitted him in the nearby hospital for treatment and the matter was informed to the parent/complainant, who rushed to the hospital all the way from Medak. The parent/complainant discharged his son on payment of the hospital bill of Rs.1000/- and he (son) was taken back to his place (Medak).

iii)     In the next visit i.e. after 15 days, the complainant visited the college of the opposite party and demanded refund of Rs.30,000/- which he paid for admission, as he wanted to join his son in the nearby place at his Medak town.

iv)               The principal/opposite party has refunded Rs.23000/- by deducting Rs.5000/- only, an humanitarian grounds, However Rs.2000/- collected for the text books etc were not refunded as the complainant not returned them back.

v)      Now the contention of the complainant demanding Rs.7000/- (Rs.5000/-+2000/- for text books) still due by the college along with the medical expenses of Rs.16000/- and Rs.2500/- compensation needs perusal of the material.

                    On examining the facts of the case, It is apparent to say that the complainant ignorantly knocked the doors of the forum because he met series of events in his life, like spending huge amount for his son’s college admission, immediately followed by medical expenses which obviously effects the economic condition of a person who happens to be police constable with meagre salary.

                   However, the college authorities have refunded 3/4^th of the amount collected from the parent/complainant which seems to be well within the norms of reasonableness. Further, the amount collected for text books and material was not refunded because they are lying with the student/son of the complainant and they are useful to the boy as he is pursuing intermediate course else where  in his home town itself, so its absolutely fair.

                   On further examination, it is observed that the presumption of ill health condition of the complainant's son is due to poisoned food eaten at the hostel of the opposite party is baseless allegation. All the students combinely have food together, if poisonon food was served all the students must have been hospitalized, whereas only this boy/complainant’s son reported pain in the stomach and on examination by the doctor, it was found to be appendicitis and an operation was conducted on 08.06.2009 and discharged him on 15.06.2009 as per exhibit No. A4. So the boy suffered appendicitis due to the food eaten at the hostel of the opposite party is ruledout. This seems to be totally on unfounded allegation  on the opposite party.

vi)               The complainant filed in his evidence exhibits A1 to A38 concerning 2 medical bills Ex.A19 and Ex.A20 amounting to Rs.1,595/- and the remaining are the petrol bills. Out of these petrol bills, only six bills i.e. Exs.A9, A28, A29, A30,

A31 and A32 are with the details of number and dates relating to the period 03.8.2009 to 08.09.2009 and on other petrol bills, number and date not mentioned and few bills with incomplete date and year missing. Moreover these bills are no way concerned to the case as the operation for the boy was conducted on 08.06.2009 and discharged from hospital on 15.6.2009 and the request letter of the parent/complainant for refund of fee was made on 13.07.2009 as per Ex.A3 sheet (1). Further the first complaint of the complainant was filed in this forum with case no.CC.73/2009 in the month of November, 2009 which was dismissed on the grounds that "both sides- parties and their advocates were called absent even after five adjournments from 16.2.2010".

                   Subsequently, the complainant filed second complaint before this forum in the month of July, 2010. The counsel for the opposite party objected this to restore the dismissed case under the provision of principles of Resjudicata and Estoppel. The earlier case  CC No. 73 of 2009 was dismissed for non appearance of the parties and their counsels but not on the subject matter and filing the complaint afresh by the complainant is not barred by the consumer Act.

                   However in totality, the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party has not been proved in the aforesaid circumstances. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any sort of compensation. Thus the point is answered against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.

6                     In the result the complaint is disallowed with no costs.

                     Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this  02^nd day of February, 2011.

        Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                      Sd/-

     President                       Lady Member                        Male Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                WITNESS EXAMINED

For Complainant:                                          For Opposite party:

          -Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:                                             For Opposite party:

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                     MALE MEMBER

Copy to:

1)   The Complainant

2)   The Opp.Party

3)   Spare copy

Copy delivered to the Complainant/

                                      Opp.Party On __________

Dis.No.      /2011, dt.