BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY .
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Tuesday, the 22nd day of December, 2009
CC.No. 28 of 2009
Between:
S.V. Chaitanya Reddy S/o S.V. Gangadhar Reddy,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Flat No. 205, Sai Raghava Narsimha Enclave,
Near Sridevi Theatre, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.
….complainant
And
Smt. Sreemala W/o P. Vidya Sagar Reddy,
Aged 42 years, Occ: Secretary & Correspondent,
Gopal Reddy College of Eng & Technology,
Pedda Kanjerla (V), Patancheru (M), Medak Dist.,
R/o H.No. 1-8-702/18/A, Pakkal Plaza, 4th Floor,
Padma Colony, Shankarmutt, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
….Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 01-12-2009 in the presence Sri. M. Giridhar, advocate for complainant, Sri. T. Buchaiah, advocate for opposite party, upon hearing the arguments , on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 55,000/- with interest at 36% p.a. and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for mental agony and hardship. Along with the complaint evidence affidavit of the complainant is also filed.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant completed his pre university education in Bellary during the year 2008 by securing 43.2% marks. He shifted his residence to Hyderabad to prosecute higher studies. The opposite party is secretary / Correspondent of Gopal Reddy College of Engineering & Technology. She made an advertisement through media i.e. B.B.L. publications by giving scrolling in television channels with regard to admission in B.Tech courses under management quota of 25% for the academic year 2008-2009. On seeing the advertisement the complainant contacted the opposite party over mobile phone. The opposite party asked him to come to the office of the college along with original certificates and amount required for admission to B.Tech. courses . Accordingly on 12.11.2008 the complainant went to the college and approached the opposite party and showed his educational certificates. On seeing them the opposite party collected Rs.40,000/- from the complainant under receipt No. 302 dated. 12.11.2008. The receipt is signed by the opposite party. At the time of collecting the amount the opposite party had given application form for admission to B.Tech., (EEE). The complainant submitted the application along with the original certificates on 14.11.2008 and the opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the same vide receipt No. 066. Subsequently on the advise of the opposite party the complainant paid Rs. 15,000/- on 12.12.2008 vide receipt Nos. 191 and 192. There after the opposite party confirmed the admission of the complainant and allotted roll No. 207 and issued college identity card. Further the complainant also appeared for two internal examinations. The admissions made by the management under the B category seats are subject to approval of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education. The opposite party without disclosing the said fact to the complainant at the time of admission, induced him to deposit Rs.55,000/- towards admission. The complainant further learnt that securing of 50% marks in the qualifying examination for admission under management quota is mandatory.
2. The opposite party has not filed any counter inspite of granting three adjournments. After the complainant filed his evidence affidavit for the second time, the counsel for opposite party filed counter affidavit of the opposite party with a petition, resisting the claim of the complainant. The said counter affidavit in brief is as follows:
The opposite party denies material averments made in the complaint and in the evidence affidavit of the complainant. The opposite party is not secretary & correspondent of the Gopal Reddy College of Engineering & Technology as alleged in the complaint. The present occupation of the opposite party is house wife, therefore the name of the opposite party may be deleted from the complainant. The opposite party never talked with the complainant personally or by phone. The complaint shows that the complainant studied pre University Education but Ex.A12 produced by him shows his educational qualification is intermediate which is quite contra. The opposite party never gave any advertisement through media for admission in B.Tech courses under management quota of 25% for the academic year 2008-2009 as alleged and she never collected any amount for her personal use and never gave any receipt to the complainant as alleged. She never signed on receipt No. 302, dated: 12.11.2008 for Rs.40,000/- as alleged . The opposite party reserved her right to proceed against the complainant under Criminal Procedure Code. The allegations lavelled against the opposite party is looking by the principal of the college but not by the secretary & correspondent as alleged. The new management provoked the complainant to file this complaint, otherwise he could not have produced Xerox copies of Exs. A10, A11, A12 and A13 as mentioned in the complaint . The new management is using the complainant against the opposite party as a tool. The complainant never used the amount for herself . In the circumstances the complaint is devoid of merits and hence the same may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. Exs. A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are filed for the opposite party. Written argument of both parties filed. Oral arguments are heard for the complainant. No oral argument are advanced for the opposite party. The opposite party and her advocate are called absent. Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for return of the amount and compensation as prayed for?
Point:
The case of the complainant is that he completed pre-university education in Karnataka securing 43.2% marks and thereafter shifted his residence to Hyderabad to prosecute higher studies and on seeing scrolling advertisement in TV channels he contacted the opposite party, who is secretary/correspondent of Gopal Reddy College of Engineering & Technology and on her advise he went to the college and showed his educational qualification certificates and after seeing the same the opposite party collected Rs.40,000/- from him on 12.11.2008 under Ex. A3. Thereafter she gave him application form for admission to B.Tech., course under management quota and the complainant submitted the application form duly filled up together with the original educational qualification certificates on 14.11.2008 and opposite party again collected Rs.15,000/- from him under Exs. A5 & A6 and confirmed the admission and allotted roll no. 207 and issued college identity card also Ex. A9 is marked to prove allotment of roll no. 207 to him. The complainant also marked Ex. A7 identity card issued by the principal of the college. The further case of the complainant is that he appeared for two internal examinations also conducted by the college. In evidence thereof the complainant marked Ex.A8. Serial No.7 in Ex. A8 relates to the complainant herein. Ex.A11 shows that the college has addressed a letter to the secretary of A.P. State Council of Higher Education for ratification of admission of the complainant herein and another candidate. Ex. A12 shows ratification of admission of the other candidate and Ex. A13 shows that ratification was not given for the admission of the complainant herein on the ground of less percentage of marks. Ex. A10 shows list of admissions approved under management quota in which the name of the complainant herein is deleted.
5. Ex. A1 clearly shows the total marks obtained by the complainant in pre-university education and Ex. A2 which is application form for admission clearly shows that the complainant herein has specifically mentioned against serial No. 8 that the percentage of aggregates marks obtained by him is 43.2 and percentage in group (MPC) is 38.3.
6. When the complainant has made it crystal clear that the percentage of marks obtained by him in the qualifying the examination is 43.2% and when the minimum percentage of marks for admission to B.Tech., course under management quota is 50%, it is not known as to how the college management has collected various amounts from him and admitted him in the college, ofcourse subject to ratification by the A.P. State Council for Higher education. Collecting of amounts and admitting the complainant, allotting him roll number in the attendance register and allowing him to write two internal examinations, when he is not at all qualified for admission to B.Tech., course under management quota, clearly indicates negligence of the management of the college. It is not stated in the complaint whether the complainant approached the college authorities for refund of the amount paid by him and for other claims made in the complaint or not. The complaint shows that he approached the opposite party and she has not returned; on the other hand threatened him. The complainant has filed this complaint against smt. Srimala showing her occupation as secretary & correspondent of Gopal Reddy College of Engineering & Technology. Her contention is that she is no longer secretary and correspondent of the college and presently her occupation is housewife. It is not known as to why the complainant has not inpleded the college authorities as one of the opposite parties.
7. During arguments when the learned counsel for the complainant is asked about the same he has stated that the opposite party collected the amounts and appropriated by herself for her personal necessities and has not credited to the account of college therefore the college authority is not made a party to the proceedings. According to him U/s 29 of the A.P. Education of 1982 in such cases the person who collected amount and appropriated himself or herself is personally liable to pay back the amount. For ready reference the said section is reproduced here under. “29 Liability of manager to repay debts incurred in certain cases: - Where any manger incurs debts for the purpose of running an educational institution without proper authorization by the management of such institution and where it is found by the competent authority after making an enquiry that the monies received through such debts have not been utilized for running the institutions it shall be the personal liability of such manager to discharge the said debts.”
8. The complainant has not taken steps to summon of the cash book and ledger of the Gopal Reddy College of Engineering & Technology to prove that the amounts collected by the opposite party from him under Exs. A3, A5 and A6 to the tune of Rs.55,000/- is not credited to the college accounts. When the opposite party specifically stated in her counter affidavit that she has not used the money for her personal necessities it is for the complainant to prove that the registers of the college do not contain credit entries corresponding to Ex. A3, A5 & A6. Firstly the complainant has not made the college authority as a party to the proceedings,. Secondly steps are not taken to summon registers of the college to prove that the amounts collected from him under Ex. A3, A5 & A6 are not credited to the college account. If at all liable it is to be fixed against the college authority, after giving to the college authority opportunity of being heard. In cases of this type no order can be passed by this forum against the opposite party in her personal capacity. If at all the complainant is entitled to proceed against the opposite party for recovery of the amounts collected from him U/s 29 of the A.P. Education Act 1982 and for compensation and damages he can do so by approaching civil court. In the above stating circumstance the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite party in this forum. The point is answered against the complainant.
9. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this day of December, 2009.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
