Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/397

COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRIRAGH KARAT - Opp.Party(s)

A ABDUL KHARIM

20 Oct 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.397/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 20/10/2014

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.474/2011 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dated 31/12/2012)

 

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1. Cochin University of Science & Technology,

Rep. by its Registrar, Cochin University P.O., Kochi-22.

 

1. School of Engineering, CUSAT,

Rep. by its Principal, Cochin University P.O.,Kochi-22.

 

(By Advs:  A. Abdul Kharim & R. Narayan)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENT:

 

          Sriragh Karat, Sreedhara Vihar, Puthoor,

Palakkad-678 001.

         

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.474/2011 the opposite parties came up in appeal.  The Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the 2^nd opposite party to refund the remaining fees of the complainant in line with the direction of AICTE and UGC.

          2.  The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was admitted in Electronics and Communication Engineering Course under NRI category in 2^nd opposite party college and paid the fee of Rs.3,16,025/- on 06/07/2010.  The unexpected exigencies refrained the complaint from continuing his studies on 05/08/2010.  The complainant approached the opposite party to cancel the admission and also to refund the fees.  As per the university rules the opposite parties refunded Rs.50,000/- to the complainant which was received under protest by the complainant.  The complaint is filed to get the refund of the balance fee of Rs.2,66,025/- from the 2^nd opposite party.

          3.  In the version filed by opposite parties it is contended that the complainant was admitted in the year 2010 under the NRI quota by paying Rs.3,16,025/-.  The 1^st year B.Tech class commenced from 26/07/2010 and the complainant cancelled his admission on 05/8/2010.  The complainant was eligible to get the refund of Rs.50,000/- as per the University Rules.  This provision has been clearly stated in the hand book and online prospectus 2010 regarding rules for refund of fees.  When a student cancels his admission after starting the class full amount of tuition fee remitted will be refunded to him irrespective of the fact that he attends the classes or not attends the classes, if the subsequent vacancy is filled by another candidate.  It is also contended that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum for want of jurisdiction.  There is no valid cause of action for the complainant and the reliefs claimed also cannot be granted.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exbt.A1 to A4 marked no oral evidence adduced by opposite parties, Exbt. B1 to B7 were marked on their side.

          5.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The counsel argued that the refund of fees paid by the complainant at the time of admission was towards the Electronics and Communication Engineering Course under NRI quota.  The 1^st year B.Tech classes started on 26/7/2010 and the respondent subsequently cancelled his admission only on 05/8/2010.  No further new admissions have been made for the course of Electronics and Communication Engineering under NRI quota for the above period.  As per the rules and regulations of the University the respondent is entitled only for Rs.50,000/- which was already refunded to the respondent.  The appellant could not admit any candidate to the vacant seat and the seat had to be provided for the lateral entry course for which the fees is very meagre.  The tuition fees for 2^nd, 3^rd 4^th years of lateral entry admission could be carried out only in the 3^rd Semester.  Hence the NRI seat that fell vacant on account of the cancellation of admission by the complainant was not filled up in the year 2010.  The subsequent conversion of a regular seat for lateral entry admission, the annual tuition fees is only Rs.50,000/-.  Thus the University suffered a loss as one NRI seat could not be filled up and there had  no refundable deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act as no consideration is paid by the complainant.  As the University or the college are not service providers the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable in this case.

          6.  The respondent’s counsel filed the argument notes stating that the respondent/complainant sought for refund of the fees collected by the appellants at the time of admission.  The respondent withdrew from the class after joining and requested for refund of the whole amount whereas the 2^nd appellant refunded only Rs.50,000/- and a balance amount of Rs.2,66,025/- with interest is due to the complainant.  The commencement of the B.Tech classes was on 26/07/2010 and the respondent withdrew from the classes on 05/8/2010.  On appreciation of evidence and documents the Forum Below allowed the entire amount to the complainant.  The contention of the appellant is that the complainant is not entitled to get refund relying on the refund rules of the University.  It is stated that a student like the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the college which imparts education.  The institution is imparting education on payment of fees and falls within the ambit of ‘service’ and the students are the consumers hence comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is maintainable.  The complainant was deprived of claming interest and mis-interpreted the refund rules contained in the prospectus.  The opposite parties are not entitled to retain Rs.10,000/- paid as University fees and the other amounts are also to be refunded.  The refund rules applicable to students under non-NRI quota are to be made applicable to the students under NRI quota also.  No provision whatsoever is made in support of the refund rule of the NRI quota and the existing rule is to be extended to the NRI quota also.  The appellants cannot take a stand over-riding or ignoring guidelines of All India Counsel for Technical Education and the UGC.  The counsel also relied on the decision reported in KLJ 2012(1) KLJ 150 wherein the National Commission allowed refund of education fee on dis-continuance of the course.  Hence the respondent is entitled for the refund of the amount paid to the appellants.

          7.  We have heard the matter in detail and have perused the documents.  We find that the case pertains to the refund of entire fees paid by the respondent under NRI quota for admission to B.Tech course.  The respondent for his own reasons dis-continued after joining the class and requested for the refund which was denied by the opposite party.  It is pertinant to note that no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service can be attributed upon the appellants on the ground that the admission to the NRI quota is exclusively Government policy matter and does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  It is clear from documents produced by the appellants no specific rule provided for refund of the fees under NRI quota.  The vacant seat under the NRI quota while dis-continuance would be considered for Lateral Entry admission in the 3^rd semester only.  Under the Lateral Entry admission the fees would be very low and the University has to suffer a revenue loss against the NRI seat offered to the complainant which remained vacant for the whole year.  So also the subsequent years where the said seat converted to Lateral Entry Seat secures only lesser fee without any non-refundable deposit.  It is also on record that no new admission had taken place to fill up the vacancy of the respondent resulting the financial loss to the appellant.  The reliance placed by the respondent in the case of Sandeep Pal Singh Vs. Punjab Agricultural University wherein discontinuance of the course resulting financial loss in the middle of the academic year does not found place in the case and that case is distinguishable on the fact that even before the completion of admission course the mother of the petitioner filed the application for refund of fees.  In this case, the admission had already closed and the seat was not filled up and the seat was subsequently made lateral entry seat.  So in merit also the respondent is not entitled for any refund from the appellants.  However, the admission to the B.Tech Course under NRI quota or non NRI quota squarely comes under on the policy of the Government and the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction in this matter.

          In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.

 

 A. RADHA         :                   MEMBER

 

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :    JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.397/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 20/10/2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.