KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 596/2010

 JUDGMENT DATED: 01-04-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

1.      The Principal,

Caritas College of Pharmacy,

Thellakom P.O, Kottayam.

                                                                   : APPELLANTS

2.      The Administrator,

Caritas College of Pharmacy,

Thellakom P.O, Kottayam.

(By Adv:Sri.Sajeevu Mathew)

          Vs.

Smt.Soumya Devassy,

Kizhakkethalackel house,

Poonchola Post,                                       : RESPONDENT

Palakkad District.

(By Adv:sri.Sajith C.George & M.C.Suresh)

                                             JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.247/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellants are under orders to refund the first year fee of Rs.18,500/- after a deduction of processing fee of Rs.1000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the order of the Forum. 

2.      The case of the complainant is with respect to the refusal on the part of the opposite parties/the college authorities in not returning the original certificates ie SSLC mark list, +2 mark list, TC and conduct certificate.  According to her she joined in the D. Pharm course in the college of the opposite parties on 7/11/2006 and remitted the annual fee of Rs.18,500/- and hostel fee of Rs.4000/-.  As it was found that the above course is not recognized and accredited word wide, she discontinued.  She attended in the institution only for about a week.  She had sought for return of the certificates several times.  But the opposite parties demanded an additional amount of Rs.18,000/- ie, the 2^nd year course fee as a precondition for returning the documents.   She has sought for return of the amount, the documents and also sought for a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

3.      The opposite parties have filed version contending that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is stated that the complainant discontinued her studies from 12.11.06 onwards and got her hostel fee refunded on 12/11/2006.  It is specified in the prospectus that discontinuation from the course at any time after allotment of admission the candidates is liable to pay the full fees for the entire course of study.  It is also stated that only a sum of Rs.1950/- was remitted towards hostel fee and Rs.1700/- was refunded on 12/11/2006.  It is further stated that the educational certificates have mandatorly to be forwarded to the concerned authorities for verification.  Hence the educational certificates were not available with the opposite parties.

4.      The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to a3, and B1 to B7.

5.        Evidently the complainant has studied in the institution for less than a week.  She got the hostel fee refunded on 12/11/2006.  The course started on 7/11/2006, the opposite parties in the version itself have stated that the complainant discontinued from 12/11/2006 onwards.  It is a case of the complainant that she had requested for the return of the certificates from the very date of discontinuation but the opposite parties insisted for the 2^nd year fee also for the return of the documents.   As to the contention regarding limitation the case of the complainant is that she demanded for the return of the documents after the date of the completion of the course ie on 31/3/2008 as it was stated by the opposite parties that the documents have been forwarded to the verifying authorities.  But the opposite parties insisted for payment of fee of the 2^nd year also.  The same is evident from Ext.A3 reply notice dated:21/1/2009.  The course is over on 31/03/2008.  Hence the case of the complainant ie cause of action arose from 31/3/2008 is liable to be upheld.  The contention regarding limitation raised by the opposite party is rejected.

6.      The fact that, the complainant got refund of the hostel fee on 12/11/2006 would indicate that she has sought for the return of the certificates also on that date.  There is no proper evidence as to whether the opposite parties were unable to admit another student in the place of the complainant although she discontinued within a week of the date of starting of the course.  There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties in not returning the original certificates to the complainant.  Even as per the version of the opposite parties, the certificates are to be forwarded to the authorities for verification.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The certificates after verification would have been returned to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties ought to have adopted a more humane approach so far as the students are concerned.  The complainant was virtually incapacitated from pursuing any other course of study.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  Hence this appeal is dismissed.

Office will forward the LCR along with copy of this judgment to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.