Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/1076

Murgesh AIgali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Krishna School of Engineering and Management - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 11.06.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 17.04.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1076/2013

DATED THIS THE 17^th APRIL OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Murugesh Shankara Aigali,

B.T.I Engineering College, Doddakenelli,

Bengaluru.

 

Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

Sri Krishna School of

Engineering and Management, #61, Mullur, Sarjapur Road

(Near Wipro Corporate Office), Carmelaram Post,

Bengaluru-35.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to refund Rs.54,000/- being the fee paid by the Complainant and the expenses incurred by him of Rs.10,000/-. 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, on 18.08.11, he was taken admission in the Op College for his B.E. first year mechanical engineering. As the said college was not approved, hence he got admitted in B.T.I. Engineering college at Doddakenelli. With regard to the admission is concerned, he had already paid an amount of Rs.64,000/- to Op. After the admission, he was stayed in the Op hostel for about one month and left the said college and got admitted in another college what as stated above. Thereafter, he sought for the refund of the admission fee paid by him from the Op. The Op by one or the other pretext postponed the same. As he come from the poor family, difficult to eak the livelihood. The amount so far paid for the admission has been raised by way of hand loan by his father.  On these grounds and other grounds prays to return the amount of Rs.64,000/-.

 

3. Inspite of notice served on Op, it did not appear, hence placed exparte.

 

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A7. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

 

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  Inspite of notice served on Op, it did not appear, hence placed exparte.  Anyhow, we placed reliance on the available materials on record to come to the conclusion, as to know, whether any deficiency of service on the part of Op.

 

          8. The Complainant to substantiate his case, filed affidavit evidence, which is nothing but reproduction of the contents of the complaint. The Complainant also got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A7. The Complainant with his affidavit produced one letter dtd.01.06.12 sent by Administrative Officer of Karnataka Examinations Authority with one a/c payee cheque no.488785 dtd.20.03.12 for Rs.3,090/- towards refund of fee paid by the Complainant due to AICTE approval for college selected by him through CET not available. The reasons for leaving the said Op college by the Complainant was on account of non-approval of the said college. In this context, Complainant has produced Provisional Admission Certificate issued by Op marked as Ex-A3, wherein it is stated that:

This is certify that Mr.Murugesh S Aigali S/o Mr.Shankar M Aigali from Bengaluru has been provided provisional admission for B.E.Mechanical Engineering for the academic year 2011.12 in Sri Krishna School of Engineering & Management, subjected to the approval from Visvesvaraya Technological University, Government of Karnataka & other Govt. agencies.

 

9. When such being the fact, Op has to refund the admission fee in the light of the decision reported in I (2015) CPJ I (A.P) in the case of Ramayanam Varun Kumar v. Gannavaram Technical Training Centre and also in III (2011) CPJ 105 (NC) in the case of IT & T Learning Solutions ltd., & Ors., v. Gaurav Malik. The sum and substance of the said decisions are with regard to the non-recognition of the colleges who take admission fee, if the said colleges are not recognized, the admission fee is refundable. In this context, now we process to what extent, the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount. Ex-A1 is the receipt issued by Op for an amount of Rs.14,000/- which includes application & registration fee of Rs.2,000/-, admission fee of Rs.1,000/-, security deposit of Rs.1,210/-, university fee of Rs.1,000/-, sports/library/lab etc., of Rs.6,500/- and other fee of Rs.2,290/- in all Rs.14,000/-. Ex-A2 is also the receipt in respect of hostel deposit of Rs.10,000/- and hostel fee of Rs.30,000/- in all Rs.40,000/-.  Out of the amount under receipt/Ex-A1, application & registration fee of Rs.2,000/- and admission fee of Rs.1,000/- are not refundable. With regard to the hostel fee is concerned, Complainant was stayed in the Op hostel for about one month. Out of hostel fee of Rs.30,000/-, one month fee of Rs.2,500/- is deductible. So out of the amount paid by the Complainant under receipt marked as Ex-A1, he is entitled for refund of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.14,000 – Rs.3,000/-). With regard to the receipt marked as Ex-A2, he is entitled for refund of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.40,000/- - Rs.2,500/-).  So in all he entitled for refund of Rs.48,500/- (Rs.11,000/- + Rs.37,500/-). Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of service on the part of Op in not refunding the said amount. Since, the Complainant has not sought for compensation much less the cost of litigation, hence, we do not grant any kind of compensation and also cost of litigation on the ground that, what is not sought for, it cannot be granted. Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

10. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.

 

          2. The Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.48,500/- (Rs.11,000/- under the receipt marked as Ex-A1 and Rs.37,500/- under the receipt marked as Ex-A2) to Complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

          3. No order for cost of litigation and compensation.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 17^th April 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Murugesh Shankara Aigali, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Receipt dtd.18.08.11
Ex-A2	Receipt dtd.18.08.11
Ex-A3	Provisional admission certificate dtd.18.08.11
Ex-A4	Letter to Op dtd.29.12.12
Ex-A5	Notice dtd.04.02.12
Ex-A6 & A7	Postal acknowledgements

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT