Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant Sri.G.R.Venugopal is resident of Hunsur and father Sri.G.S.Ramanna. He has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 seeking refund of Rs.11,065/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and unspecified damages for mental agony. 1st Opposite Party “Sri.Brahmatantra Swatantra Parakala Swami Educational and Charitable Trust, Mysore” is a Charitable Trust running several Institutions including an Institute of Science, Commerce and Management at Mysore. 1st Opposite Party is the said Trust and 2nd Opposite Party is the Principal of such College. <br /> 2. Notices were duly served on both Opposite Parties who appeared and contested the matter by filing Version, affidavit and documents. The Complainant has also filed affidavit and produced documents. Heard the learned counsels for the Opposite Party. The Complainant and his Advocate continuesly remained absent. <br /> 3. The case of the Complainant is as under:<br /> For the academic year 2005-06, the Opposite Parties have issued an Advertisement calling applications from the willing students to B.Sc., Degree course with Bio-Chemistry, Micro Biology and Bio-Technology (hereafter called as BMBT Course). It was published by the Opposite Parties that such course was recognised by the University of Mysore. The Complainant who is father of Arjuna approached for admission and accordingly, admission was given to the Complainant son on payment of Rs.11,065/-. The 2nd Opposite Party has issued two separate receipts bearing No.007 for Rs.3,565/- and receipt No.247 for an amount of Rs.7,500/- dated 13.06.2005. The son of the Complainant has to travel from Hunsur to Mysore, it was told that classes would be commenced from 11.07.2005. There was no infrastructure and there was no recruitment of staff as on 13.06.2005, when the fees amount was collected. <br /> 4. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant son attended the college on 11.07.2005, and came to know that there were only two students for such course and there was no recognition of the University. For this reason, the Complainant informed 2nd Opposite Party that he is withdrawing his son from the college and seeking admission in JSS College. The 2nd Opposite Party readily agreed and returned the original transfer certificate and marks card. He has also assured that fees would be refunded subsequently. The Complainant got his son admitted to JSS College with great difficulty. He has also submitted an application on 25.07.2005 to 2nd Opposite Party for refund of the amount paid by him. The Complainant has borrowed loan for payment of such fees, but the Opposite Party has not responded to such request. Second representation was given on 05.09.2005 followed by legal notice dated 31.12.2005. It is the case of the Complainant that there is deficiency in service and he is entitled for the refund of the entire amount with cost and interest. <br /> 5. The Opposite Party has filed Version and contested the matter on various grounds. As far as admission of the son of Complainant to B.Sc., (BMBT) Course is not disputed. It is contended by the Opposite Party that, 1st Opposite Party is a Charitable Trust which is distinct from 2nd Opposite Party. It is further contended that the Complainant has donated an amount of Rs.7,500/- to 1st Opposite Party-Trust voluntarily. Hence, there is no question of refund of such amount to the Complainant. It is further contended that the Complainant has paid Rs.3,565/- towards various fees prescribed such course. The 2nd Opposite Party-Institute has obtained affiliation from the University of Mysore, and such course was also recognised by the Government. They have conducted such course regularly for other students who have completed three semesters. Hence, the contention of the Complainant that there was no sufficient staff or infrastructure is false. <br /> 6. The Complainant’s son Arjuna approached the Opposite Party on 12.07.2005 and submitted an application that he is intending to appear for counseling for B.E. Degree Course at Bangalore. On his personal request all original documents were returned. The 2nd Opposite Party never assured that fees would be refunded subsequently. According to rules, the fees was non-refundable. This fact was made known to the Complainant at the time of admission. Hence, there is neither any deficiency in service, nor mental agony as alleged by the Opposite Party. For these reasons, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissing the Complaint with cost.<br /> 7. Heard the Learned Counsels for both sides.<br /> 8. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant has proved that fees paid to the Opposite Party was refundable?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant further proves that deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 3. What Order?<br /> <br /> 9. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Points No.1 & 2 : Negative.<br /> Point No.3 : As per final Order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 10. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The Opposite Party has produced a copy of the brochure which was issued to the students at the time of admission. Clause-3 of the General Rules reads as under:<br /> <br /> “3 students seeking admission should bring their parents/guardian to the College at the time of admission. They have to give an undertaking in the prescribed declaration form. Fees once paid shall not be refundable under any circumstances”. <br /> <br /> 11. It is admitted by the Complainant in Complaint and affidavit that his brother acted as guardian at the time of seeking admission. The brother of the Complainant has not filed any affidavit. Under such circumstances, we have to conclude that there was clear understanding when Complainant’s son was admitted to the institution, that fees paid is not refundable, under any circumstances. The Complainant has produced original (two) receipts, the 1st receipt No.247 is for Rs.7,500/- and it is clearly mentioned that this amount is given as “Corpus” fund to the Charitable Trust. Such donation is exempted under the provisions of Income Tax Act. The donation is in the nature of gift to 1st Opposite Party. Hence, there is no much substance in the contention of the Complainant. He has not made out any other ground of attack in this respect.<br /> 12. The receipt No.007 will disclose that an amount of Rs.3,565/- was paid to the College of 2nd Opposite Party towards various fees. It is clearly admitted by the Complainant that the course was not commenced on 25.06.2006, but, the students were informed that the college will commence classes with effect from 11.07.2005. So there is no question of giving education between 25.06.2006 to 11.07.2005.<br /> 13. The Opposite Party has produced original letter signed by the student Arjuna dated 12.07.2005. The letter reads as under;<br /> <br /> “As I have to appear for counseling of B.E. Degree at Bangalore, I request you to kindly return both (certificate) which I have given at the time of my admission to BMBT in your College.”<br /> <br /> The further endorsement clearly indicates that the original certificates were taken back by the Complainant’s son. There is no acceptable evidence to show that some assurance was given by the 2nd Opposite Party regarding the refund of the fees. Hence, the Complainant has failed to establish such oral assurance.<br /> <br /> 14. The main contention of the Complainant is that the course was not properly affiliated and recognised. The Xerox copy of the Paper Publication produced by the Opposite Party will disclose that they have not kept the students or their parents in the dark. It is clearly mentioned in the Advertisement that such affiliation is anticipated from Mysore University. The Opposite Party has also produced Xerox copy of the letter sent by Mysore University to the Chief Secretary dated 05.05.2005. As per this letter, the Mysore University has granted affiliation to such course. It is mentioned in the affidavit of 2nd Opposite Party that such course was conducted and the other students have completed two semesters. It will be cleared from the Xerox copy of the Identity Card issued by JSS College Mysore that Complainant’s son was able to secure admission at JSS College and Card was issued on 13.07.2005. After getting such admission the Complainant addressed a letter on 25.07.2005 and 05.09.2005 requesting refund of the fees paid by him. It is clear from the above facts that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant’s son voluntarily withdrew himself from the college of the Opposite Party and joined JSS College, probably because, it was old established Institute. But there is no denial of service by the Opposite Party.<br /> 15. In the case of Ramadevobaba Engineering College –Vs- Sushant Yuvaraja Rode and another reported in III 1994 CPJ page-160, the Hon’ble National Commissioner as observed “where there is no deficiency in service on the part of Petitioner Engineering College, and the Respondent-Complainant Sri.Rode withdrew from the College to join another Institute voluntarily there is no deficiency on the part of R.P.Engineering College.” <br /> 16. In view of the above facts, we come to conclusion that the Complainant is not entitled to seek any relief. So Points No.1 & 2 are answered in negative, and we proceed to pass the following Order.<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear the costs.<br /> 3. Give a free copy of this Order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br />