Date of filing: 21.07.2014.
Date of disposal: 31.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 31st day of December, 2014
C.C.No.159 of 2014
Between:
Koya Priyadarsini, D/o (late) Palguna Reddy, C/o L. Venu Gopala Krishna Reddy, Hindu, Aged 19 years, R/o Naupada Post, Santha Bommali Mandal, Srikakulam District.
…..Complainant.
And
1. Sri Chaitanya Eamcet Coaching Centre, Andhra Pradesh, Rep: by its Principal, Sri Vyshnavi Bhavan, Bharathi Nagar, Gurunanak Colony, Vijayawada – 521 008.
2. Junior Varsity Educational Management Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Manager, Registered Office Located at Plot No.80, Sri Sai Plaza, Ayyappa Society Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 17.12.2014, in the presence of Sri S. Sambasiva Reddy, advocate for complainant; Sri K. Benarjee, advocate for opposite parties; and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties 1 and 2 directing them to refund an amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. towards refund of fee, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency and negligence in rendering service, to award costs of complaint and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant submitted that the opposite parties through one of their agent by name Mr.K.Tirupathi Rao approached the complainant through her maternal uncle L.Venugopala Reddy in July, 2012 and persuaded for admission into the opposite party educational institutions by stating that they are providing mineral water for drinking, hot water for bathing, Hygienic food and amenities, health care, best coaching and best faculty. The complainant has failed to secure good rank in EAMCET while studying in the opposite parties institute at Visakapatnam. She being lured with the representations made by the management of opposite parties decided to join into the 1st opposite party coaching center and paid Rs.5,300/- on 16-7-2012 by depositing the same in the account of agent Tirupathi Rao towards initial admission fee. Thereafter she also paid Rs.33,000/- vide receipts No.1978905, 1978906, dt.23.7.12 towards part payment of course fee as well as pocket money. Thus the complainant has made a total payment of Rs.38,300/- to the opposite parties. But to the shock of complainant, her life became miserable in the campus owing to the unhygienic food, water, rooms, bathrooms and also poor coaching. The complainant identified that the mess, water, food were very unhygienic and the rooms were congested as too many wards are allotted a small room. Further the faculty is unskilled. Owing to the poor and unhygienic food, water, toilets and accommodation, she developed stomach ailments and for every 4 – 5 days, she suffered from vomiting, diarrhea, head ache and also not able to attend the class. The complainant also reported to the principal about the poor conditions, but of no use. Unable to bear with the situation, the complainant withdrew her admission from the opposite party institution and requested to finalize the amount. But the opposite parties delayed the same and on 22-11-2012, they have issued a request form for the settlement of the account, which the complainant filled and submitted for refund of amount. But thereafter in spite of repeated requests of complainant and her maternal uncle, the principal of 1st opposite party failed to refund the amount. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.12-8-2013 and 3-7-2014 to the opposite parties for refund of amount. Though the opposite parties received the notice failed to comply with the demand. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties filed version only denying the allegations made in the complaint. They have not come forward with any specific case, but sought for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant filed her chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 on her behalf. The principal of 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit, but no documents were marked.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in returning the admission amount to complainant?
- If so, to what relief.
Point No.1:
6. The case of complainant is that she joined in the 1st opposite party for long term EAMCET coaching, which was being managed by the 2nd opposite party, as she failed to secure good rank while studying at Visakapatnam. The complainant paid Rs.5,300/- on 16-7-2012 by depositing the same in the account of agent of opposite parties and also paid Rs.33,000/- towards part payment of course fee, in total she paid Rs.38,300/-. Ex.A1 counter foil establishes that the complainant deposited Rs.5,300/- in the account of one K.Tirupathi Rao. Further Ex.A2 and A3 receipts discloses that the complainant paid Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) on 23-7-2012. As such, it is clear that the complainant in total paid Rs.38,300/-. The main case of complainant is that believing the representations made by the agents of opposite parties regarding facilities, food and accommodation apart from faculty, she joined in the institute. But to her dismay, there are no such facilities and the mess, water and food are very unhygienic and the accommodation is too congested and due to that the complainant suffered a lot and unable to attend the classes and finally on 29-8-2012 she left the institute by informing the same to principal of 1st opposite party and also requested to refund the amounts. But the opposite parties failed to refund the amounts in spite of oral requests made by complainant and her maternal uncle and issuance of legal notices under Ex.A6 and A9. Ex.A7 is postal receipts for Ex.A6 and Ex.A8 is acknowledgment of 1st opposite party. Ex.A10 are postal receipts for Ex.A9 and Ex.A11 and A12 are acknowledgments of opposite parties 1 and 2 for Ex.A9.
7. Peculiarly in this case, the opposite parties only denied the allegations made in the complaint para wise, but not put forth any specific defence.
8. Admittedly the complainant joined in the 1st opposite party institution on 23-7-2012 and paid fees, which is evident from Ex.A2 and A3. According to complainant, she was in the hostel till 29-8-2012. But careful perusal of ExA2 and A3 discloses that the said receipts were raised in the name of one ‘Koyya Lakshmi Reddy”, but not in the name of complainant. In this regard, there is no explanation offered by the complainant. Further the Student’s Academic Report of complainant under Ex.A5 discloses the name of complainant as “Koyya Priyadarshini Reddy”, but not “Koyya Lakshmi Reddy”. The main relief sought by complainant for refund of amount is based on the receipts under Ex.A2 and A3. But as the receipts under Ex.A2 and A3 are not in the name of complainant, this Forum cannot taken them into consideration more particularly on the light fact that there is no explanation from the complainant about the name mentioned in the receipts. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any refund of amount basing on Ex.A2 and A3. Further the ‘request for settlement of account’ filed by complainant under Ex.A4 is only a photo copy. It does not bear signature of principal or it does not have any endorsement of institution.
9. In this case, the complainant being the student of 1st opposite party at Visakapatnam ought to have got knowledge about the institute and its accommodation and facilities and it seems that she having satisfied with the facilities joined in the institute. Further the complainant has not examined any other co-student during the said period to substantiate her contention.
10. To top it all, we would like to rely on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshy & Another Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and others in Civil Appeal No.22532/2012 regarding the maintainability of case before this Forum, wherein it was held that
“Education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”
The same view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in a case between Regional Institute of Co-Operative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chowdary reported in 2014 CPJ 120 NC. The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not refunding the amount to the complaint. As such the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought for.
Point No.2:
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 31st day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 16.07.2012 Photocopy of counter foil of Ing Vysya Bank.
Ex.A2 23.07.2012 Photocopy of receipt issued by OPs.
Ex.A3 23.07.2012 Photocopy of receipt issued by OPs.
Ex.A4 22.11.2012 Photocopy of request for settlement.
Ex.A5 17.11.2012 Copy of students academic report issued by OP.
Ex.A6 12.08.2013 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex.A7 Postal receipts.
Ex.A8 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A9 03.07.2014 Photocopy 2nd legal notice got issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex.A10 Postal receipts.
Ex.A11 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A12 Postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of the opposite parties: -Nil-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
