10.9.08<br /> K.P.Preethakumari, Member<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay balance refundable course fee of Rs.17000/- with Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost.<br /> The complainant’s case is that he was enrolled as a student for P.G Diploma in Dietetics course of 2004-05 in WGSHA Manipal owned and managed by opposite party. At the time of admission they had collected a total sum of Rs.58.500/- from the complainant as course fee which includes tuition fee and other fees of Rs.50,000/-, registration fee of Rs.2500/- and caution deposit ofRs.6,000/- which he was arranged by availing loan from KSFE. At the time of admission the opposite party assured the complainant that if he desires to withdrew from the course within the stipulated time and the same is permitted by the authorities he shall be eligible to get refund of the fees paid by him after deducting the registration fee of Rs.2500/-. So he had remitted the course fees by way of demand draft which was drawn from State Bank of India, Kannur on 17,8,04. The class was commenced on 4.10.04 and the complainant had withdrawn from the course after giving notice to the opposite party on 7.10.04. The request was accepted by the oppoiste party. But in spite of the promise to refund the fees there was undue delay in refunding the amount. Later as per the repeated demands of the complainant the opposite party returned only Rs.39, 000/- instead of Rs.56, 000/- i.e. after deducting registration fee. No reason was explained why a sum of Rs.17, 000/- has been retained by opposite party. So the complainant issued a registered lawyer notice on 23.11.04 to refund the retained amount of Rs.17, 000/-. But instead of refunding the opposite party issued a reply showing false statement. Hence this complaint.<br /> On receiving the complaint, the Forum had issued notice and the opposite party has appeared through Adv.G.K.Gopakumar, Thalassery The opposite party has filed version admitting that the complainant had admitted for the Dietetics course of 2004-05 and has collected Rs.58,500/- from the complainant as course fee which includes Tuition fee and other fees, registration fees and caution deposit, but denied the allegation that the opposite party has represented that in case the complainant is desires to be withdrawn from the course within a stipulated time, the same is permitted by the authorities, he shall be eligible to get refund of the fee paid by him after deducting the registration fee of Rs.2500/-. The complainant joined the course after counseling and had given prospectus in which it is clearly states the refund Rules that withdrawal from the <br /> class will be allowed before expiry of 15 days, from the date of commencement of the class and General/In-service category-100% tuition fee will be refunded and Registration fee and other fees are not refundable under any circumstances for the general/Mahe and In-service category. They had never given any personal assurance to the complainant. The opposite party states that it is an institution having its work place as well as registered offices at Manipal which is within the limits of Udupi district of the State of Karnataka. The entire process like purchase of application form, submission of application form participates in counseling for admission to the Institute, filing of application to withdraw from the course etc. were taken place at Manipal and hence no cause of action were taken place within the jurisdictional limits of this Forum and hence denied that the complainant has drawn a demand draft for the course fee from the State Bank of India, Kannur branch which will constitute the jurisdiction of the Forum. The opposite party further admits that the complainant has withdrawn from the course on 7.10.04 after submitting an application for withdrawal which was allowed by the authority. So the refundable portion of the fees was sent to the complainant within a short period and no delay was caused in refunding the same. So the opposite party has no liability to refund further amount to the complainant and hence no question arises from deviating the rules published in prospectus. Opposite party further denies the contention that the complainant had arranged loan from KSFE and suffered much mental agony etc. No deficiency of service was committed by opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the case?<br /> 2. Whether the opposite party had committed any unfair trade practice and any deficiency of service on their part?<br /> 3. Relief and cost<br /> The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 series and B1 to B6.<br /> Issue No.1<br /> The opposite party admitted that the complainant had drawn demand draft from the state Bank of India, Kannur branch as contended by the complainant. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act relates to the jurisdiction of this District Forum, it is interalia provided therein that the complainant would be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part arises. In the present case as mentioned above the complainant paid the amount to State Bank of India, Kannur b ranch for demand draft, therefore a part of cause of action arose at Kannur within the local limits of this Forum and hence have ample jurisdiction to try this complaint and this issue No.1 is answered accordingly.<br /> Issue No.2 & 3<br /> It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had sought admission for P.G diploma in Dietetics course by paying an amount of Rs.58,500/- and classes commenced on 4.10.04 and the complainant had withdrawn from the course on 7.10.04 with the permission of the authority and the opposite party had refunded Rs.39,000/- and withheld Rs.17000/- by saying that other fees and registration fees are not refundable, and this 17000/- will come under the title of’ other fees’. But on perusal of documents ie.Exts.A2 and it can be seen that in the case of Diploma in Dietetics course ‘other fees’ has not been specified in separate head where as in other course ‘other fees’ has been given separately and is excluded from refund. In short for PG Diploma in Dietetics course no fee is shown in separate head as ‘other fees’. According to opposite party as per the refund rules ‘other fees’ and registration fees are not refundable. But in this case opposite party had withheld Rs.17000/- as ‘other fee’, even though there is no such specification in the prospectus or in any where else in the documents produced by the opposite party. So the opposite party had withheld Rs.17000/- without any merit. So it is found that some unfair trade practice and deficiency of service were taken place on the part of opposite party. More over the complainant had produced Exts.A6 and A7 by which he had availed the amount by way of taking loan from KSFE.So he had suffered some mental agony also. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.17, 000/- along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- withRs.500/- being the cost .so issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.17000/-(Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation with a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Prospectus issued by OP<br /> A2.Mahe admissions 2004 withdrawal<br /> A3.Mahe Admission 2004 prospectus for new courses<br /> A4.Manipal academy of higher education, withdrawal refund note<br /> A5.copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP<br /> A6. Passbook of KSFE Chitty<br /> A7. Receipts issued from KSFE for remitting cash<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party<br /> B1.Prospectus of Manipal Academy of Higher Education<br /> B2, Mahe Admissions 2004 prospectus for new courses.<br /> B3.Mahe Admission-form for withdrawal from the course 7.10.04<br /> B4, Mahe withdrawal refund notes Dt., 12.11.04.<br /> B5.Mahe admission 2000 permission for withdrawal issued by Deputy Registrar dt.7.10.0-4.<br /> B6.copy of the lawyer notice sent to complainant.<br /> Wit ness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Sivaramakrishnan<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party<br /> DW1.Ramesh Hegde<br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br />