Date of filing:26.12.2013
Date of Disposal:4.6.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
WENDNESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2014.
C.C.No.7 OF 2014.
Between :
Master M.S.G.S.S.V.S.D. Ratna Prabhakar, 16 years, being a minor represented by and acting through his natural guardian and father Sri Majji Srinivasa Rao, R/o D.No.9-46/5A, Near Primary Health Center, Kalidindi, Krishna District, Andhjra Pradesh Rep., and espoused by Consumers’ Guidance Society, Having its registered and administrative office at Flat No.1, 1st Floor, D.No.58-1-26, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010.
….. Complainant.
And
The Principal, Sri Chaitanya Educational Institution, Raman Bhawan, - 2, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District.
…..Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 26.5.2014 in the presence of Consumers’ Guidance Society Representing the complainant and Sri K.Benarjee, Counsel for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief;
- The complainant reserved a seat for intermediate course for the academic year, 2012-2013 in Raman Bhavan Campus-2 for his son by paying Rs.10,250/- to the opposite party in the month of December, 2012 believing the representations made by the opposite party, his son would be given a seat in intermediate course in Raman Bhavan Campus-2. A clear endorsement was also made on the top of the application form to that effect. But contrary to their assurance the opposite party allotted a seat to the complainant’s son in other campus instead of Raman Bhavan Campus-2 which leads the complainant has to cancel the seat owing to the default of the opposite party allotting the seat in agreed campus. Therefore the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the advance fee pay by him for which the opposite party agreed to refund the same on returning the fee receipt. Accordingly the complainant returned the original receipt to the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to refund the amount inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant and also for a legal notice. Therefore the opposite party committed deficiency of service in allotting the seat to the son of the complainant as assured by them. Hence the complainant is constrained to filed this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.10,250/- towards the amount paid by the complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
2. The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the opposite party is a very reputed institution and has been in the field of education since 20 years and has always kept in mind the welfare of the students and imparts quality education to them. The opposite party incurs a lot of expenses in the infrastructure hiring the lecturers, maintenance, medical facilities and other miscellaneous expenses to accommodate and comfort the student to create a wonderful atmosphere for the student to study peacefully and enjoy his or her study during their stay in the institution. Prior to the admission into opposite party’s institution they have explained to the complainant about the non refundable deposit and the deductions made according to the rules, regulations and guidelines of the institution from the amount paid by the complainant and in case if the complainant did not join in the opposite party institution the amount paid Rs.10,000/- towards admission is not refundable. The opposite party is suffered loss due to the acts of the complainant and his son as once the seat is allotted to any student in an institution the seat shall be reserved for him/her throughout the year and if he or she leaves the institution the seat shall remain vacant which is a loss to opposite party’s institution as they lose a prospective student in that year and hence they suffer huge loss due to which they deduct certain amount which is just and proper and as such they are not liable to pay any more than the amount sent to the complainant. The opposite party has not refused to allot the seat in Raman Bhavan Campus-2 they gave admission to the son of the complainant as requested by him, but the complainant himself did not joined his son in the opposite party institution. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. On behalf of the opposite party Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Administrative Principal filed his affidavit and no documents were marked.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant in not refund the fee paid by him?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant reserved a seat for his son for intermediate course for the academic year 2012 -2013 in Raman Bhavan Campus-2 under Ex.A.1 by paying Rs.250/- for application and Rs.10,000/- for admission fee to the opposite party in the month of December, 2012. But the opposite party allotted a seat to his son in another campus instead of Raman Bhavan Campus-2, due to non-allotment of the seat in Raman Bhavan Campus-2, the complainant cancelled the seat and requested the opposite party to refund the advance fee paid by him and the opposite party agreed to refund the same and asked the complainant to handover the original fee receipt and the complainant returned the same. But the opposite party failed to refund the fee on repeated requests of the complainant. Hence, he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.2 dated 6.11.2013 demanding the opposite party to refund the fee of Rs.10,250/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, within 15 days failing he would approach to the court of law. The opposite party received the said notice but did not refund the fee to the complainant. Ex.A.3 is acknowledgement/cash receipt issued by opposite party for admission fee Rs.10,000/-.
7. The defence of the opposite party is that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/-towards admission fee and Rs.250/- towards application fee and that is not refundable in any case, the same was accepted by the complainant and then the fee was paid by him. The opposite party incurs a lot of expenses in infrastructure, hiring the lecturers, maintenance, medical facilities and other miscellaneous expenses to accommodate and comfort the student to create a wonderful atmosphere for the student to study and enjoy during his/her stay in the institute.
8. The above statement of the opposite party may be true. But we noticed Ex.A.1 in it it was clearly mentioned that the seat would be given to the son of the complainant in Raman Bhavan Campus-2. But the opposite party failed to give admission to his son in that campus hence he cancelled the seat to his son in opposite party’s institution. Moreover the opposite party says that once the seat is allotted to any student in opposite party’s institution, the seat shall be reserved for him/her throughout the year and if he/she leaves the institution the seat shall remain vacant, which is a loss to opposite party’s institution as they lose a student in that year and hence they suffer huge loss due to which they deduct certain amount which is just and proper. But the opposite party failed to place any documentary evidence to show that the seat was remained vacant which was allotted to the son of the complainant till the end of the year. According to citation in FIIT JEE Ltd., Vs. Minathi Rath 1 (2012) CPJ 194 (NC) “Any term of contract which is unconscionable and voidable is not enforceable”. No service provider like training institutes or coaching centers or educational centers can be allowed to forfeit the fees or consideration received in advance in case the student has not availed the service. Thus, the terms “fees once paid is not refundable” is unconscionable as well as voidable and therefore, not actionable”. No service provider can take or charge the consideration of the service which it has either not given or has not been availed. In this case the complainant paid Rs.10,250/- towards admission (Rs.10,000/-) and application fee (Rs.250/-) for admission of his son in intermediate in Raman Bhavan Campus–2 of the opposite party. For that he got endorsement on application form by the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to keep its promise and allotted a seat to the son of the complainant in another campus instead of Raman Bhavan Campus–2 . Hence the complainant cancelled the said seat and asked for refund of the fee paid by him. But the opposite party fails to refund the same. The opposite party has no right to retain the fee with him without giving seat as complainant asked. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of complainant in not allotting the seat in Raman Bhavan Campus–2 and not refund the fee to him. Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of fees amount which he paid. The application fee will not be refunded. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to refund the admission fee of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st January, 2013 to till realization and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. Accoridngly
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of June, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 M.Srinivasa Rao, D.W.1 P.Srinivasa Rao,
Complainant Administrative Principal,
(by affidavit) of the opposite party, (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 . . Application for admission into hostel Junior/senior Intermediate course.
Ex.A.2 06.11.2013 Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.3 . . Acknowledgement/cash receipt issued by the opposite party.
For the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
