BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 11/05/2011

Date of Order : 11/08/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 240/2011

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant joined the 1^st opposite party institution for M.Sc.(Applied Electronics) after paying Rs. 25,675/- as admission fee on 14-10-2010. On the same day, the complainant remitted Rs. 2,000/- as caution deposit and PTA fund. The complainant hardly attended the classes for 2 months. Due to the strategic financial situation of the family, the complainant was not in a position to continue with the studies. So, he decided to discontinue the studies with effect from 22-12-2010. The complainant duly intimated the matter to the 1^st opposite party. Evenafter repeated requests, the 1^st opposite party refused to return the documents of the complainant. Therefore, he caused to issue a notice dated 09-02-2011 demanding to return the documents to the opposite parties. Since there was no reply, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. To which the 1^st opposite party has not responded. The 2^nd opposite party issued reply belatedly in which they have stated that the complainant is liable to pay one more semester fees to get his certificates released. The opposite parties have no authority to retain the original certificates of the complainant. Due to the failure on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant could not apply for any job or engagements anywhere showing his educational qualifications. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to release the original certificates and to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- together with costs of the proceedings on account of the same.

2. Version of the opposite parties :

The complainant is not a consumer in law or on facts. The complainant had joined the M.Sc. (Applied electronics) course at the 1^st opposite party on 28-09-2010 and classes for the course commenced from 24-09-2010 and the admission was closed on 18-10-2010. The complainant had attended the classes till 22-12-2010 and was absent thereafter without any reason. The complainant discontinued the course after the closure of admission. In the admission brochure 2010-2011 for self-financing courses, it is clearly stated that those who discontinue after the closure of admission shall have to pay tuition fee for one more semester as liquidated damages. The discontinuation of the complainant, after the closure of admission has resulted in a loss of an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The complainant joined the course after accepting the terms and conditions laid down in the admission prospectus. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side. The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the documents released?

3. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- Education has become a commercial activity and the respected traditional 'Guru-Sishya' relationship no more exists. Controversy whether the Act applied to education was settled by the Apex Court by upholding that imparting education was service covered by the Act, (Buddist Mission College & Hospital Vs. Bupesh Kumar and Others 1 (2009) CPJ 25).

6. Point No. ii. :- The following issues are not disputed by the parties:

1. The complainant joined the M.Sc. (applied electronics) course in the 1^st opposite party institution.

2. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 27,675/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards admission fee and caution deposit, PTA fund respectively evidenced by Exts. A2 series.

3. The complainant discontinued the studies with effect from 22-12-2010.

4. Thereafter, the complainant caused Ext. A1 notice to the opposite parties on 09-02-2011 demanding to return the original certificates of the complainant.

5. Again the complainant caused to issue Ext. A4 lawyer notice to the opposite parties.

6. The 2^nd opposite party issued Ext. A6 reply notice intimating the complainant that the student who discontinues his studies after the closure of the admission shall have to pay tuition fee for one more semester as liquidated damages.

7. According to the opposite parties, in the admission rules 2010-2011 for self financing courses it has been clearly stated that those who discontinue after the closure of admission shall have to pay the tuition fee for one more semester as liquidated damages. It is also stated that the original certificates will be released only after remitting one semester tuition fee as penalty on discontinuation. The relevant clause in Ext. B1 prospectus reads as follows :

“1. Fee once remitted SHALL NOT be refunded

under any circumstance.

However, the amount shall be refunded to those who discontinue after getting admission, but before the closure of admission. Those who discontinue after closure of admission shall have to pay tuition fee for one more semester, as liquidated damages. The Vice Chancellor shall be the appellate authority for any matter related to liquidated damages. To those who get admission under Government quota, Government rules will be applicable in this regard.

1. Caution deposit shall be returned on completion of the course. (After adjusting liabilities if any).”

8. However, we are at a loss to find any clause in Ext. B1 for the retention of the original documents for the lack of the remittance of the tuition fee. The retention of the original certificates of a student not only amounts to unfair trade practice but also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The liability as averred by the opposite parties does not find any mention anywhere in Ext. B1. It is worthwhile to note that public notices issued by UGC and by the AICTE overrule any condition laid down in the prospectus of a University College or an Educational Institution ultra vires to the notices. The above notices have been reproduced in the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported as Nijin Anwar Vs. Symblosis Institute of International Business (2009 CTJ 24) as well as in Andhra University and Another Vs. Janjanam Jagedeesh (III (2010) CPJ 310). We cannot differ.

9. In view of the above, we are only to hold that the complainant is entitled to get his original certificates submitted before the 1^st opposite party at the time of admission to the M.Sc. (Applied Electronics) course. It is made clear that the 1^st opposite party is at liberty to take recourse to any legal proceedings against the complainant to realize the fee as contemplated in the self-financing admission rules 2010-2011, if so advised.

10. Since the primary grievance of the complainant has been met this Forum is not to contemplate on compensation and costs at this juncture since it may amount to sub-judice.

11. In the result, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally cause to return the original certificates of the complainant to him submitted at the time of admission.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 11^th day of August 2011.