Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/4/2015

B.Guru Murthy, S/o. Late B.Varadajajulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Chaitanya Educational Academy, Rep. by its Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

A.Devendranath

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                       Filing Date: - 12-01-2015                                                                                                                  Order Date: - 06-10-2015.

 

            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,  

                                             CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                              SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

           TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND

                                                              FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.04/2015

Between

B.Guru Murthy, S/o. Late B. Varadarajulu,

Aged about 54 years, R/at D.No. 31-1-1/1,

Mandanapalle Road, Punganur, Chittoor Dt., A.P.                    …. Complainant

 

And

i)Sri. Chaitanya Educational Academy,

Rep., by its Divisional Manager,

Main Campus, Gandhi Road, Tirupati.

 

ii) The Principal,

Sri. Chaitanya Educational Institution,

‘Meenakshi Soudam’, perur, Tirupati.

Chittoor District.

 

                                                                                                  …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 16.09.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.A.Devendranath, counsel for the complainant, Sri.Y.K.V.Arjuna Reddy, counsels for the opposite party No.1 & 2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,190/- with interest @ 9% per annum towards the loss and damages suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

          2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant joined his daughter B.Jahnavi, in intermediate course in M.P.C (ICON) group, in 1^st opposite parties institution, and the 2^nd opposite party is the main branch located in Gandhi Road, Tirupati. The opposite parties fixed the course fee including with hostel charges for an amount of Rs.68,000/- per year which is paid in installments . Accordingly the complainant paid the admission fee of Rs.3,000/- on 30.04.2014, tution fee of Rs.22,000/- on 02.06.2014, he deposited pocket money of Rs.4,010/- on 13.06.2014 and also he paid Rs.4,190/- towards  Akash Books on 13.06.2014 and totally he paid 33,200 under four heads.

          3.  The complainant submits that he joined his daughter in the hostel and she stayed in the hostel for 6 days from 16.06.2014 to 18.06.2014 and from 23.06.2014 to 25.06.2014, meanwhile she fell ill because of the unhygienic food provided by the opposite parties in the hostel and also the opposite parties failed to provide the medical treatment to her. Hence because of the above reasons the complainant has forced to take back his daughter to his native place as the hospitality in the hostel was not good. The complainant further submits that when he asked the opposite parties to refund an amount paid by him at the time of admission and the opposite parties asked to return all the Akash Books that were given to his daughter at the time of admission to Smt. Sailaja, warden of the hostel, he complied the same and also he returned all the original receipts of payment which were given to him by the second opposite party while payment. After receiving all the above receipts and books the opposite parties failed to pay the same that was paid by him, and at last after repeated requests and reminders made by the complainant. Finally on 12.10.2014 the second opposite party gave a cheque dated 20.09.2014 bearing no. 244765 for Rs.16,010/- only, by retaining an amount of Rs.17,190/- out of the total amount of Rs.33,200/-. When he demanded the opposite parties for the refund of the remaining amount the opposite parties stated that they deducted the amount as per rules and regulations prevailing in the application form.

          4. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally committed deficiency of service as they failed to provide proper and necessary treatment and hygienic food to his daughter as promised at the time of admission and forced him to take back his daughter and also retained the amount paid by him which amounts to deficiency of service. Hence he caused a legal notice on 15.10.2014 calling upon the opposite parties to repay the amount of Rs.17,190/- along with the interest. After receipt of the said notice also they fail to comply with the same. Hence he filed the complaint to refund the  remaining amount of Rs.17,190/- along with the interest 24% per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- being costs of the complaint and totally he claimed Rs.1,52,190/- towards loss and damages suffered by his daughter and for other reliefs.

          5. The opposite parties came in to appearance and opposite party no.1 filed the written version and same may be adopted by the opposite party no.2. The opposite parties contended that the complainant is no way connected with the transactions between the B.Jahnavi to their college, as neither the complainant was present nor made his signatures in the application form as a guardian or parent, where on one B. Dhanalakshmi was signed as parent and guardian in the application form of B.Jahnavi and also stated that in Para(3) of the complaint the respondents 3&4 were added as they are the head of the 1^st respondent institution, where as there is no reference about them in any long cause title or in the short cause title of the entire complaint. And also contended that they denied the allegations made by the complainant as they failed to provide  proper medical facility and hygienic food to his daughter is not at all true and also stated that at the time of admission in the declaration form the parent or guardian after gone through the terms and conditions signed in the application form and also stated that “For Hostellers”  “Before July 31^st, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.20,000/-and Rs.25,000/- for LEO NEON SPARK & ICON SPARK / MEDICON/ NEON (I.C) respectively will be deducted. Before, September 30^th, Rs.25,000/- Rs.30,000/- and Rs.35,000/- LEO NEON SPARK & ICON SPARK/ MEDICON/ NEON (I.C) respectively will be deducted. No fee will be refunded after September 30^th irrespective of number of days of attendance in any case. But in this particular case B.Jahnavi joined as a hosteller and she paid the sum of Rs.33,200/- in total. As per the terms and conditions as agreed by the B.Jahnavi and her mother with our institution she joined her daughter. So as per the above fee structure, the respondents institution is having right to retain an amount of Rs.25,000/- irrespective of number of days of attendance in any case. As per the terms and conditions of the cancellation of admission and account settlement an amount of Rs.25,000/- has to be retained by them institution and they are liable to pay the sum of Rs.8,200/- only. But they paid the sum of Rs.16,010/- to her by retaining the sum of Rs.17,190/- only. Hence they are not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the complainant and his claim is contrary to the terms and conditions of the declaration. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them. He filed the present and in order to get wrongful gain with all false allegations. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

          6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 and on behalf of the opposite parties R.B.S. Ramu S/o. R. Bala Subramanyam Iyyer, principal of the second opposite party filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B1. Both complainant and opposite parties 1&2 filed written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         7. On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:   

1. (a) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) of C.P.Act, and he is a competent  to file the present complaint?  (b) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
3. To what relief?

          8. Point No:-(i)(a):   There is no dispute regarding the admission of B.Jahnavi, the daughter of the complainant in intermediate course in opposite parties no.1’s institution. Because Ex.B1 clearly evidencing the same. The main contention of the opposite parties is the complainant is not a competent person to file the present complaint because neither he signed in the application form as a guardian nor he was present at the time of admission of his daughter. But as per Ex.B1 it is clearly mentioned in 8^th column that the name of the father is mentioned as B. Guru Murthy, that itself is enough to state that he is the father of the B.Jahnavi and also after leaving the college he joined his daughter in Punganur, the native place of the complainant for intermediate course. So, as a responsible father, for the interest of his daughter’s education, he kept in mind in order to avoid absence of his daughter for the classes in the college, he filed the present complaint on behalf of her.

          As per section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act consumer means ‘ (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires of avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person(but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose)

 

         9. In the present case, the admission was taken by the daughter of the complainant and also in the said application was signed by her mother but the complainant who is the father of the student B.Jahnavi is also one among the natural guardian of his daughter having the right to represent the case on behalf of her for the interest of his daughter as a beneficiary. Hence he will come under the purview of the ‘consumer’ and cannot termed as an outsider, and he is very much competent to file the present complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

          10. Point no. (i)(b):-   The learned counsel for the complainant argued that because of the opposite parties failed to provide the medical facilities and hygienic food as promised at the time of admission and also contended that after repeated requests made by the complainant, they have not taken any steps to provide the same. In the result she fell ill. Because of the above said reasons, he has forced to take his daughter to their native place and joined her in the local college for the continuation of intermediate course. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant joined his daughter in opposite Parties College with a fond hope for the bright future of his daughter, which is vanished by the attitude of the opposite parties.  The counsel for the opposite parties argued that whatever the contentions made by the complainant are baseless and frivolous, but no where they have stated what are the services provided  by them to satisfy the complainant’s daughter and   whether they have attended for providing medical facility when she fell ill. If at all they had provided the medical facility they might have filed any evidence to prove the same. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof it cannot be considered. Hence it clearly shows that the opposite parties failed to provide the medical facilities and proper food to the daughter of the complainant as promised by them.

         11. The next contention of the opposite parties that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1  in the column of cancellation of admission and account statements, it  was clearly mentioned that if any student withdraw from the college on or before July,31^st they will deduct the fees of Rs.25,000/- for the M.P.C NEON (I.C) student. But in the present case the opposite parties stated that they retained an amount of Rs.17,190/- only instead of Rs.25,000/-  and they paid Rs.16,010/-and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant which is contrary to the terms and conditions. Even though the opposite parties refunded the course fee as per the rules and regulations mentioned in Ex.B1.  But they failed to place any documentary proof that they refunded the amount which was collected for pocket money and Akash Books on 13.06.2014. Hence retaining the above said amount without making reasons is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Hence there is a clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence this point is answered against the opposite parties.   

         12. Point no. (ii):-    In view of our finding in point no.1 the complainant is entitled for the refund of pocket money which was collected  i.e. Rs.4,010/- (rupees four thousand and ten only) and also the complainant is entitled for Rs.4,190/-(rupees four thousand one hundred and ninety only) which was collected by the opposite parties for Akash Books on 13.06.2014. Totally 8,200/- (rupees eight thousand two hundreds only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization and also the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousands only) towards mental agony suffered by the complainant, and also Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousands only) towards costs of the complaint.

         13. Point no. (iii):-   In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.4,190/- (rupees four thousand  one hundred and ninety only) which was collected for Akash Books and for Rs.4010/- (rupees four thousand ten only) which was collected for pocket money in total (4190+4010)=8,200/- (rupees eight thousand two hundred only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. on 12.01.2015 till realization. The opposite parties 1&2 further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(rupees five  thousands only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousands only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five  thousands only) shall also carry interest  @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

          Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum this the 06^th day of October, 2015

          Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-                        

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

C.C.No.04/2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: B. Guru Murthy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: R.B.S. Ramu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	A Photo Copy of messages sent to the complainant by the 2nd respondent.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued on behalf of the complainant. Dt: 15.10.2014.
	Information letters of the Legal Notice given by India Posts. (Photo copy)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Original Application for admission into hostel of K.Jahnavi, filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

 

                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                                 President

.

                                                          

.

// TRUE COPY //

 

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

Copies to: -1. The Complainant.

                   2. The opposite parties 1&2.