DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 20.08.2020
CC/89/2020
Aswathy, D/o Ramdas
Anjaneya House, Ayinampadam
Nemmara, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad – 678 508 - Complainant
(By Adv. U.Suresh)
V/s
Proprietor
SIMS Distance Education
1st Floor, Poopas Arcade
Near KSEB Office, Olavakkode Main Road - Opposite party
Olavakkode, Palakkad – 678 002
(By Adv. C.Sreekumar & M.Hakeem)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya .A Member
1. Pleading of the complainant in brief
The complainant joined the opposite party institution for the Distance Education course in M.A Human Resource Management conducted by Periyar University in the year 2015 and paid Rs. 14,000/- as course fee. Later as per opposite party’s demand she paid Rs. 2,225/- as exam fee on 25/03/2017. But the opposite party remitted complainant’s exam fee wrongly towards M.A Human Rights course and the complainant could not write the exam because of that.
When approached, the opposite party admitted their mistake and asked the complainant to apply once again. Believing their words, the complainant paid exam fee amounting to Rs. 4,050/- on 22/04/2019. But this time also the opposite party failed to remit the exam fee and the complainant once again lost her chance to write the exam. The complainant lost her academic years and did not get a degree for the studied course due to the acts of the opposite party. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party had caused mental agony and the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party for that. Because of their conduct the complainant lost her opportunities to apply for jobs and she claims a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for that.
So she has approached this Commission for directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation together with Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice issued to opposite party returned with endorsement ‘left’ at the first instance. The complainant produced fresh address of opposite party and notice was served to them. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party denied the entire allegations in the complaint. As per their version, the complainant approached the opposite party institution in the year 2015 for joining the course for Human Resource Management. At the time she was doing MSW course having 2 years duration (2014 - 2016). The opposite party informed her that 2 PG courses cannot be done at the same period. Then she intimated opposite party that she is going abroad and asked the opposite party to apply for the course by entrusting first instalment fee and application form. The application forms are filled by the students themselves and the opposite party only submit the application to the University. The complainant did not pay the balance course fee and paid the exam fee only on 04/04/2016. The opposite party intimated the complainant about the exam fees when they got notification from the University and as per that the complainant paid the fee. But she did not accept the hall ticket or write the exam even after repeated intimations from the opposite party. She lost her academic year due to her fault only.
Again she paid the fee for the 2nd year of the course in 2017 and the opposite party had given the study materials to her. But she again did the same thing and lost another year. She did not pay any amount towards fee in the year 2018. In 2019, she approached the opposite party expressing her desire to continue the course and as per request the opposite party contacted the University. The University informed that they will extend the course for another 2 years ending in 2019 and she has to complete all the papers together in the year 2019. But she did not receive the hall ticket and was not able to write all the papers for 2 years together and lost her chance. Later she approached the opposite party demanding refund of the fee which the opposite party denied as the fees was already paid to the university. The complainant’s mother attended the calls of the opposite party intimating exam details and agreed to inform the complainant about this. The loss of academic year was only due to the acts of the complainant in not following the academic calendar and due to non-payment of fees. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties the following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complainant was vigilant and followed the instructions of the opposite party in completion of the course?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
- Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
5. The evidence of the complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5. The opposite party did not file proof affidavit and their evidence was closed. Complainant filed notes of argument.
6. Point No: 1
Complainant’s pleadings are to the effect that she joined in the Distance Education course in M.A Human Resource Management in the opposite party’s institution in the year 2015 and paid Rs. 14,000/- as course fee. Later, on 25/03/2017, as per the direction of the opposite party, she paid Rs. 2,225/- as exam fee. But the opposite party remitted the fee towards M.A Human Rights course instead of M.A ‘Human Resource Management’. Because of this, she could not write the exam.
7. She further contended that the opposite party admitted their mistake and asked her to join the course once again and promised to remit the fee without any fault. As per that she remitted an amount of Rs. 4,050/- on 22/04/2019 as exam fee. But they did not pay the amount and once again she lost her chance to write the exam.
8. The complainant produced 5 cash receipts issued by the opposite party which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A5.
Ext.A1 dated 10/12/2015 shows the payment of Rs. 4,000/- towards course fee, Ext. A2 dated 04/04/2016 shows payment of Rs. 3,000/- and Ext A3 dated 10/03/2017 shows payment of Rs. 7,000/- These two are towards the course fee and in these 3 receipts course is shown as ‘M.A Human Resource Management’.
So Ext. A1to A3 shows the payment of a total of Rs. 14,000/- as course fee for the period 2015-2017. Ext. A4 dated 25/03/2017 is the receipt issued for the payment of exam fee of Rs. 2,225/- and Ext. A5 dated 22/04/2019 is the receipt issued towards remittance of exam fee of Rs. 4,050/-.
9. So the contention of the complainant regarding the payment of course fee and exam fee is proved. The opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant regarding mistake in filling the application and wrong entry of the course name. They contended that the application forms are filled by the students themselves and the duty of the opposite party is only to submit the application to the university.
10. The opposite party further stated in their version that even after their repeated intimations regarding exam date and collection of hall ticket, the complainant did not accept the hall ticket or write the exam. She lost her academic year only due to her fault.
11. From the receipts produced and marked by the complainant, it is seen that, she paid the course fee of Rs. 7,000/- for the period 2015-16, Rs. 7,000/- in 2016-17 and paid the exam fee on March 2017. There was no payment in the year 2018. Then she paid Rs. 4,050/- on 22/04/2019 towards exam fee which appears to be the fee for 2 years.
Complainant alleges that she could not write the exam due to the fault in filling the application form by the opposite party. They wrote the course name as “M.A Human Rights” instead of “M.A Human Recourse Management”. Normally the applications are filled by the student themselves and the Education centre only submit the application to the University. So that contention put forth by the complainant appears to be unbelievable. Further the complainant can very well produce her ‘Hall Ticket’ before the Commission to prove her case. No communications made by the complainant with the opposite party or the University in this regard is seen produced by the complainant. Normally, if anything untoward like this happens, the aggrieved person communicates with the University to solve the issue. Further, there was no attempt on the part of the complainant to cross-examine the opposite party. When deficiency in service is alleged on the part of the opposite party, the onus is on the complainant to prove the allegation by adducing cogent evidence. Here the complainant had only produced the fee receipts issued by the opposite party.
12. The opposite party’s contention is that the complainant did not collect her Hall Ticket or write the exam even after their repeated intimations. In the year 2019, she approached them expressing her desire to continue the course and after getting permission from the University, the complainant paid the exam fee for 2 years in 2019, but failed to write the exam. Payment of Rs. 4,050/- on 22/04/2019, towards exam fee, probabilises the case of the opposite party to be correct.
Complainant failed to adduce evidence to show that she was vigilant and followed the instructions of the opposite party in completing the course and she could not write the exam due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No: 1 is decided accordingly.
Points 2 to 4
In the absence of cogent evidence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainants
Ext. A1 – Cash receipt issued by opposite party towards course fee dated 10/12/2015 (Original).
Ext. A2 – Cash receipt issued by opposite party towards course fee dated 04/04/2016 (Original).
Ext. A3 - Cash receipt issued by opposite party towards course fee dated 10/03/2017 (Original).
Ext. A4 – Cash receipt issued by opposite party towards exam fee dated 25/03/2017 (Original).
Ext. A5 - Cash receipt issued by opposite party towards exam fee dated 22/04/2019 (Original).
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: NIL
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost- NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
