BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 702 of 2011 against CC 48/2011 , Dist. Forum, Vijayawada
Between:
Prasad V. Potluri (PVP) Institute of Technology
Vijaywada
Rep. by its Principal
K. Srinivasulu
Kanuru, Vijayawada
Krishna Dist. *** Appellant/
O.P.
And
J. Vivekananda
S/o. JRK Rao
R/o. 2-18, Railway Road
Guntupalli, Vijayawada Rural
Krishna Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. Challa Gunaranjan
Counsel for the Respondent: Served.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by opposite party educational institution against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it return the original certificates of the complainant within one month from the date of order.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined in 1st year B.Tech course for the academic year 2008-2009 by paying fee. However, due to ill-health of his father, he was unable to prosecute his studies and stopped going to the college. He joined in another college in BBM course. When he approached for return of certificates the appellant institution demanded him to pay remaining three years fee for return of those documents. In fact, he was unable to pay any fee. He got issued a legal notice. As there was no reply he filed the complaint seeking return of his certificates together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs.
3) The appellant institution resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant had joined in their college for four year B.Tech course in the year 2008-2009 agreeing to the rules and regulations of the college wherein there was a categorical mention that fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances. If a student wishes to discontinue the course at any time for any reason, he would not be permitted to do so unless 50% or 100% (depending on payment or free seat) of the balance amount of fee which he would have paid had he continued the course, original certificates including the T.C. will only be issued only at the end of the course. The complainant was admitted under management quota on payment of Rs. 85,300/- towards 1st year tuition fee. The administration of college depends on the fee paid by the students and if any student withdraws from the course it would not be possible to run the institution as it would suffer for the remaining academic years also. When his father submitted a letter on 22.8.2009 informing that his son was unable to prosecute his studies and sought for return of certificates it in turn demanded him to pay Rs. 1,51,250/- towards tuition fee. Till such time amount was paid, original certificates could not be issued. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the appellant institution filed the affidavit evidence of its Principal and did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant institution has no right to retain the original certificates. It cannot demand the fee for which the complainant did not study. He was entitled to return of certificates. More over the complainant could not pursue his education due to his father’s ill-health for which he cannot be found fault with and therefore directed the appellant institution to return the original certificates, however, did not order compensation or costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said order the appellant institution preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainant as well as his father agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of the college. When there was a stipulation that he would not be entitled to return of certificates and that certificates would be returned only on payment of fee. When the complainant could not be able to complete his four year course he could not seek refund of amount paid by him nor certificates, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant joined in B.Tech course for the academic year 2008-2009 and paid the fee after submitting his original certificates. When he discontinued his studies on the ground of his father’s ill-health and sought for return of his original certificates the appellant institution insisted for payment of balance of fee. It refused to return the certificates unless balance of fee was paid.
9) The question whether a student is entitled for refund of the amount in case of discontinuance of studies has been considered by the National Commission in Mandsaur Institute of Technology (MIT) Vs. Aksht reported in (IV) 2011 CPJ 376 (NC). The contention therein was that if the student left the course in midway the institute would incur loss by his seat remaining vacant during the remaining period of the course. The said contention was not accepted. One of the reasons was that no bond/bank guarantee was taken from the student to the effect that the balance fee for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in the midstream.
10) Coming to the facts, the appellant institution did not take any bond/bank guarantee from the complainant to the effect that the balance fee for the whole course would be received by the institution even if he left in the midstream. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that in view of his father’s ill-health he discontinued the studies and shifted to another institution, and there is no bar for change of institution. When the appellant institution insisted for making payment, he had no option except to approach the Dist. Forum to get his certificates etc. This action on the part of appellant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.
11) The National Commission considering these facts observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2003 SC 3724 recognized the rights of private institutions to charge fees for the entire course and required a student leaving the institutions in midstream to pay the fees for the remaining period. However, on the ground that no bond/bank guarantee has been taken in that case it could not have collected the amount for the balance period. The National Commission considering the above case observed that in the absence of bond/bank guarantee the institution cannot derive any benefit from the ratio laid down in Islamic Academy case.
12) The appellant institution was not correct in demanding the amount for returning the certificates. This is unjust and unethical. Assuming that he could not pursue his education as his father could not pay the fee, he could not be penalized by not returning his certificates. To pursue his career these certificates are undoubtedly necessary. Keeping the original certificates and insisting for payment of dues would amount to a sort of unfair trade practise, and also deficiency in service. His certificates are to be returned. For the fee if any to be paid, it can recover by instituting appropriate proceedings . The return of certificates has nothing to do with the payment of balance of fee. They operate on different planes. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
13) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr 13/09/2012
UP LOAD – O.K.
