By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President
1. The complainant is a student of the opposite party institution and she is doing M.Sc. psychology course. The complainant got admission in the year 2020 to the first-year course of M.Sc. Psychology and she got admission under management quota. While she got admission, the university had not published merit list of the candidate and due to that reason, she sought admission in Management quota. During the November 2020, she remitted 50,000/- as capitation fee and the opposite party assured that in case the complainant get admission under merit list the capitation fee will be adjusted towards tuition fee. Thereafter the class started and meanwhile the complainant got admission in the merit quota and the opposite party admitted a new candidate to the seat of complainant on receipt of capitation fee. But the opposite party did not refund Rs.50,000/- which the opposite party had collected as capitation fee and not adjusted towards semester fee. Though complainant demanded refund of the amount the opposite repay refused to do the same.
2. On 25/01/2021 the complainant approached the principal of the opposite party institution with an application and the principal forwarded the same to the management for further action. Thereafter want of any sort of response from the opposite party the complainant again approached the opposite party through the principal. But the opposite party did not heed the request of the complainant but directed to remit semester fee. Moreover, it was also stated that if the complainant fails to remit semester fee on or before 13/09/2021, the complainant will be expelled from the institute. Hence the complainant remitted the semester fee on 13/09/2021. The complainant submitted that she is hailing from poor family and struggling to meet the educational expenses of brothers and sisters of the complainant. The complainant is suffering from mental agony and financial loss due to the irresponsible and illegal act of the opposite party.
3. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and alleges unfairness and illegality on the side of opposite party. Hence the complainant prays for the refund of 50,000/- rupees and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency from the side of opposite party and thereby caused financial loss and hardships. The complainant further prays cost of Rs.20,000/-.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments an allegations in the complaint.
5. The opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact, lack of bonofides and liable to be dismissed. The relationship between the complainant and opposite party is that of a student and educational institution. Hence the complaint will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. The opposite party admitted that the complainant was studying for M.Sc. Psychology course in 2020 in management quota. Considering the good academic performance of the complainant and the high marks achieve, the opposite party allotted the complainant a seat from the management quota in M.Sc. Physiology and she joined in the class. But the opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party demanded Rs.50,000/- towards capitation fee from the complainant and on such demand the complainant remitted the capitation fee in the opposite party’s institution. It is further denied that the opposite party had given assurance to the complainant that if she obtains the seat in merit list the capitation fee shall be adjusted towards to tuition fee of the complainant.
7. The opposite party submitted that the total seat for M.Sc. Psychology is 20 seats and out of which 12 is allotted to general and 8 is allotted to the management. The management is at liberty to allot management seats to those students who are according to the management is fit to join for the reasons including high mark secured, financial status and stability, social conditions of the family etc. The opposite party submitted that they never used to receive any capitation fee from any of the student to whom the management seats are allotted. The opposite party institution is a charitable intuition and so receiving capitation is against the ethics of the committee. Moreover the institution run by the opposite party is used to give receipts for the payments to the institution.
8. The opposite party admitted that the complainant after securing a management quota obtained a seat in merit list but strongly denied the averment that the opposite party had received Rs.50,000/- from another student and allotted the management seat which was vacant since the complainant obtained seat in general merit. It is further submitted that since the complainant secured a seat in general seat, one seat in management quota is still vacant. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant demanded several times to return the capitation fee which was refused by the opposite party. The allegation that the opposite party assured the complainant that the opposite party will consider the request and the principal forwarded the application to the management on 25/01/2021. It is also denied that the complainant again requested on 09/02/2021 to consider the grievance of the complainant since there is no action was taken from the part of opposite party. The opposite party denied that they threatened the complainant stating that if the complainant not paid the semester fee on or before 13/09/2021, she will be expelled from the college. The opposite party used to issue receipts for every payment made by the parties. The complainant filed this complaint only to harass the opposite party and to damage the reputation of the institution. Due to the act of the complainant one seat remained absent, this can be allotted to an eligible student. There is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party neither demanded nor received any capitation amount from the complainant or any other students. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation or damages or cost to the complainant. According to the opposite party the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is copy of letter issued by the father of complainant to the opposite party dated 13/09/2021. Ext. A2 is copy of fee receipt dated 13/09/2021. Ext. A3 is copy of lawyer notice dated 12/10/2021. Ext. A4 is copy of letter issued by the complainant dated 09/08/2021. Ext. A5 is copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party did not file any document. The complainant and opposite party filed notes of argument.
10. Heard both side perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency in service or defective practice from the side of opposite party
- Relief and cost
11. Pont No.1,2 &3
The opposite party admitted the contention of the complainant that the complainant admitted for M.Sc. Psychology course in 2020 in management quota and subsequently the complainant obtained seat in general merit. But denied the allegation that the opposite party demanded Rs.50,000/- towards capitation fee from the complainant and on such demand the complainant remitted the capitation fee in the opposite party institution. It is also stated that the opposite party had not given assurance to the complainant that if she obtains admission in the merit list, the capitation fee shall be adjusted towards her tuition fee.
12. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable since the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is of a student and the education intuition. It is also contended that the opposite party never used to receive any capitation fee from any of the student to whom the management seats are allotted. The opposite party submitted the Hidayathul Muslimin orphanage is a charitable intuition and so receiving capitation fee is against the ethics of the committee. It is also contended the opposite party is used to give receipts for the payment to the intuition.
13. The complainant strictly opposed placing the order of the apex court in the matter of civil appeal diary No.(s)12901/2020 dated 15/10/2020. It appears from the decision produced by the complainant that the appeal stand admitted in the matter of Manu Solanki and others VS Vinayaka Mission University and others. So the decision regarding the educational institutions are out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act stand challenged before the apex court.
14. But considering the merit of the complaint, the allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had received Rs.50,000/- as capitation fee from the complainant. But the complainant has not produced document to show that the opposite party has received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as capitation fee. The opposite party stoutly contended they never used to receive any capitation fee from any of the student to whom the management seats are allotted and the opposite party intuition is a charitable intuition and so receiving capitation fee is against the ethics of the committee. Hence in the absence of proper document for receipt of capitation fee the Commission cannot uphold the contention of the complainant and direct to refund the amount as prayed. We accept the version of the opposite party that they are not receiving capitation fee and the intuition is a charitable institution and receiving capitation fee is against the ethics of the committee. If that being the case of the opposite party, the opposite party is at free to refund the amount if any has been collected from the complainant considering the financial condition of the family and the financial stringency which thy are facing.
In the light of above facts and circumstances the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1: Copy of letter issued by the father of complainant to the opposite party dated
13/09/2021.
Ext.A2: Copy of fee receipt dated 13/09/2021.
Ext A3: Copy of lawyer notice dated 12/10/2021.
Ext A4: Copy of letter issued by the complainant dated 09/08/2021.
Ext A5: Copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
