Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/609/2014

Kanodia P.G.Girls Collage through Principle - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rashi Jain d/o Anil Jain c/o Parveen Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Jitendar Mohan Jain

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 609 /2014

 

Kanodia PG Mahila Mahavidlaya, JLN Marg, Jaipur through Principal

Vs.

Rashi Jain d/o Anil Jain r/o Plot No. 104 Flat No. 51, Vrindavan Apartment, Padmawati Ist, Nirman Nagar,Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 9.6.2015

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr.Jitendra Mohan Jaincounsel for the appellant

Mr. Kamal Chamaria counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 6.5.2014 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken admission in BBA course in the appellant institution in July 2009. After two months she submitted an application on 15.9.2009 to the Principal that on health grounds she will not be able to continue this course and requested for refund of her admission fees and hostel fees. The respondent ordered refund of caution money of Rs.1000/- and mess security of Rs.1000/- The complainant filed a consumer complaint for refund of tution fees and hostel fees. The learned DCF allowed the complaint ordering the respondent to refund the admission fees of Rs. 9350/- and hostel fees of Rs.15,400/- and a sum of Rs.21,000/- was allowed as compensation for mental agony.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the prospectus and conditions of the admission the admission fees is not refundable and since the complainant had left the course on her health grounds, no fee is refundable. He further submits that the complainant had levelled false allegations against the college regarding mismanagement at the hostel. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to

3

 

prove her allegations of sub-standard food provided to the inmates and at the same time there is no evidence to prove that the complainant had fallen ill by consuming such food. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned DCF and has pleaded that in her affidavit the complainant has narrated all the facts which have not been controverted.

 

We have heard both the counsels and have considered their arguments. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that initially no evidence or affidavit was submitted by the complainant in support of her complaint. After the respondent filed its evidence, an affidavit was filed by the complainant and they had no opportunity to controvert any of the facts. On perusal of the record we do not concur with the conclusion of the learned DCF that there was any mismanagement in the hostel or sub-standard food was being supplied or food was not hygenic or there was no cleanliness. On these issues there is absolutely no evidence and we cannot sustain the conclusion of the learned DCF. The fact remains that complainant herself had opted to leave this course on her health grounds and she never complained of unhygenic food or anything like that. The complainant had studied for two

4

 

months in the institution and we do not find any reason that she can claim refund of the term fees of Rs. 9350/-. She had deposited annual fees of Rs.15,400/- as hostel fees and had occupied the hostel for only two months. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the complainant had vacated the hostel in middle of the session and that vacancy will remain for the whole session. However, we do not agree with this contention as the institution normally prepares a waiting list of the candidate who had applied for the hostel. In the interest of justice we order that only the hostel fees of Rs.10,000/- may be returned to the complainant. We find no reason for any mental agony to the complainant. She has not been able to prove any of the allegations levelled in the complaint and thus we also set aside the order passed by the learned DCF awarding of Rs.21,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

 

Thus, this appeal is partially accepted and modified as above.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm