3. Since the opposite party was exparte, this complaint was allowed on 31.10.2008 on the basis of the proof affidavit and other evidences adduced by the complainant.

                   4. Being aggrieved by the order of this Forum, opposite party filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram as Appeal No. 376/2008.

                   5. After hearing the Appeal, the Hon’ble CDRC set aside the order of this Forum for providing the opportunity to contest the matter and remanded the case for fresh disposal. 

                   6. Accordingly, this Forum issued notice to the parties and the parties appeared before this Forum.

                     7. On appearance, opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions:  According to the opposite party, their institution is a reputed institution having qualified and experienced teachers as per the standards and stipulations of M.G. University and All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) with all required infrastructure and it has got well equipped computer lab, library etc.  The opposite party has not made any false or misleading statements or representations about the standard, grade or quality of the coaching and the opposite party has not given any false of misleading statements regarding the facilities available in the institution.  The complainant secured the admission satisfying with the nature and quality of the coaching of this institution and she was fully satisfied with other infrastructure in the institution.  She had completed the first semester with full satisfaction and joined for the second semester in the month of March 2008 and she had attended second semester classes also.  While so she had applied for the return of T.C. and other certificates on 20.03.2008 stating that she got an employment and she is not intending to continue the course.  As the complainant was studying for the second semester, she is bound to pay the second semester fees of ` 50,000.  But she had paid only ` 40,000 at that time and an amount of ` 10,000 is in arrears.  Students who discontinue a particular course of study has to pay the fee for the concerned semester and a student who leaves the institution after admission is not eligible to claim refund of semester fees.  Students who discontinue the course of study are entitled to get back the certificates and other documents only after payment of the semester fees.  It is admitted that the complainant is entitled to get the caution deposit amount of ` 3,000 and  ` 1,800, the 50% of the van fee.  The complainant had agreed to deduct this amount from the balance tuition fee due from the complainant and she also undertaken to pay the balance amount of ` 5,200 being the balance tuition fees at the earliest.  The certificates of the complainant were returned as per the request of the complainant.  At the time of receiving the certificates, the complainant has promised to pay the balance tuition fee of ` 5,200 at the earliest.  But she had not paid the said amount so far.  Instead of remitting the said amount as agreed and undertaken, the complainant has filed this complaint suppressing the real facts with the malafide intention of evading the payment of the amount due to the opposite party.  All the allegations contrary to the facts stated above are false and hence denied.  The opposite party never refused the refund of caution deposit or van fee as alleged by the complainant.  The said amount was not returned only because the complainant has requested to adjust and set off that amount against the balance tuition fees due to the opposite party.  The opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service, unfair trade practice or any illegal acts against the complainant.  With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowable or not?

                   9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DWs.1 and 2 based on their proof affidavits and Exts. A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 to B4.  After closure of evidence, both sides filed their argument notes and they were heard.

                   10. The point:  The complainant’s allegation is that she had secured an admission for MBA course at the opposite party college believing the information furnished by the opposite party in respect of the facilities provided by them for the said course and she had completed the first semester also.  But during the first semester itself, the complainant came to know that the facilities offered by the opposite party are false.  So she decided to discontinue the course and she had not attended any classes of the second semester and requested for the return of her original certificates.  But the opposite party compelled her to remit the second semester fees for the return of the certificates and directed the complainant to submit an application stating that she had got an employment and hence she is not intending to continue the course.  Since the complainant had no other alternative, she had submitted her application on 18.03.2008 as directed by the opposite party in their words.  Thereafter, opposite party collected an amount of ` 40,000 on 07.04.2008 from the complainant for the return of the certificates and returned the certificates of the complainant.  The above said acts of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get ` 40,000, the amount collected by the opposite party and the caution deposit of ` 3,000 and van fee of ` 1,800 with interest along with compensation of ` 25,000 and cost of this proceedings.  The complainant prays for allowing the complaint.

                   11. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with 3 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Thereafter 2 other documents were also marked as Exts. A4 and A5, which are produced by the opposite party as per the direction of this Forum.  Ext.A1 is the prospectus of MBA course offered by the opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the fee receipt dated 10.09.2007 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant in respect of the payment of the first semester fees.  Ext.A3 is the fee receipt dated 07.04.2008 for Rs. 40,000 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant in respect of the payment of 2^nd Semester Fees.  Ext.A4 is the Mahatma Gandhi University examination calendar for the year 2008.  Ext.A5 is the time-table dated 04.01.2008 of the first semester MBA degree examination scheduled to start on 13.02.2008 published by the M.G. University.

                   12. On the other hand, opposite party’s contention is that they have provided best facilities for MBA course at their college as per the rules, regulations and norms of the University and AICTE.  As per the rules of the University, the students who discontinue the course are entitled to get back their original certificates.  But the students who discontinue the course shall pay the semester fees of that semester.  In this case, the complainant attended the second semester classes upto 07.04.2008.  So she is liable to pay the second semester fee of ` 50,000.  Though she had attended the second semester classes upto 07.04.2008, she had paid only ` 40,000 as the semester fee promising to pay the balance amount later.  Meanwhile, the complainant requested for the original certificates as she had got an employment.  When the complainant submitted an application for the return of her certificates, opposite party told the complainant to pay the semester fees arrears of ` 10,000.  Then the complainant requested to set off arrears with the caution deposit and the van fees amount and further requested that the balance will be paid at the earliest.  Opposite party accepted the same and returned the certificates.  According to the opposite party, the complainant is liable to pay the second semester fees as she had attended the second semester classes upto 07.04.2008.  So the non-payment of the second semester fees to the complainant is not illegal and hence they have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service.  With the above contentions, they argued for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   13. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, the present Principal of the opposite party and the Director of the opposite party filed proof affidavits in lieu of the chief examination along with 4 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavits, they were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.  Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the complainant’s application dated 18.03.2008 for the return of the original certificates.  Ext.B2 is the copy of the order No. AC-A1/1/311/2004 dated 20.11.2004 of M.G. University to the effect that the students to discontinue the particular course of study need to pay only the fees for the semester concerned and not the entire course fee and the certificates and other necessary documents of the students who discontinue a course shall be returned upon payment of fees for the particular semester.  Ext.B3 is the prospectus of MBA course offered by the opposite party.  Ext.B4 is the second semester attendance register of MBA students.

                   14. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute regarding the admission and discontinuation of the complainant.  The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the second semester fees.  According to the complainant, she had not attended the second semester classes and hence she is not liable to pay the second semester fees and she is entitled to get her original certificates without remitting the second semester fees.  But she was compelled to remit the second semester fees for the return of her certificates.  According to the opposite party, though the students who discontinue the course are entitled to get the original certificates, they have to remit the semester fees of that semester.  In this case, the complainant had attended the second semester classes upto 07.04.2008.  So she is liable to pay the 2^nd semester fees and she is not entitled to get back the semester fees already remitted.  The complainant had remitted ` 40,000 only and she had an arrears of ` 10,000.  They also argued that they have collected the semester fee not as a pre-condition for the return of the certificates and the said collection is legal and the complainant is not entitled to get any refund. 

                   15. On a perusal of Ext.B4 attendance register, it is seen that the complainant had attended the classes upto 07.04.2008.  But the overall appearance of Ext.B4 attendance register casts serious doubts regarding the genuineness of that document.  Freshness of Ext. B4, non-filling of the first page etc. shows that Ext.B4 is not a genuine document and it is a fabricated document brought before the Forum only for the purpose of defending their case.  So the entries regarding to presence of the complainant in the 2^nd semester shown in Ext.B4 is not reliable.  At the same time, we do not find any reason to dis-believe the complainant’s contention that she had not attended any of the classes of the second semester.  Therefore, we find that the complainant had not attended the second semester classes.  Further Ext.B1 shows that the complainant had submitted her application for the return of her certificates on 18.03.2008.  Ext.A3 fee receipt shows that she had remitted ` 40,000 on 07.04.2008.  Though the opposite party claims that the complainant had remitted her second semester fees in part, but they are silent about the date of receipt of the second semester fees.  As per Ext.A3, the date of remittance of second semester fees of Rs. 40,000 is on 07.04.2008, which is subsequent to Ext.B1 application of the complainant.  The date of application (Ext.B1), the date of payment of the semester fees (Ext.A3), the last date of attending the class by the complainant (Ext.B4) if read together, we can come to a conclusion that Ext.B4 is not genuine and is a fabricated document and the complainant had not attended the 2<sup>nd</sup> semester classes.  Ext.B1 shows that the complainant submitted Ext.B1 on 18.03.08.  Fees collected on 7.04.08 and the certificates were returned on 7.04.08.  So it is clear that certificates were returned just after the payment of fees though she have submitted her application on 18.03.08.  Moreover why the opposite party allowed the complainant to attend the classes without collecting the fees. So the collection of ` 40,000 is only for returning the certificates.  Therefore we find that the complainant had not attended the 2^nd semester classes and opposite party returned the complainant’s certificates after collecting the semester fees from the complainant under compulsion.  The above said act of the opposite party cannot be justified and it is an unfair trade practice and the opposite party is liable to the complainant.  Therefore, this complaint can be allowed.

                   16. In the result, this complaint is allowed; thereby the opposite party is directed to return ` 40,000 (Rupees Forty thousand only) collected as per Ext.A3 and caution deposit of ` 3,000 (Rupees Three thousand only) and ` 1,800 (Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) being the 50% of the van fee with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till today along with compensation of ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) and cost of ` 1,500 (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till the whole realisation.

                   Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22^nd day of August, 2011.

                                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                   (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)       :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :         Beena. C.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :         Prospectus of MBA course of the opposite party.

A2     :         Photocopy of the fee receipt for ` 50,000 dated 10.09.2007

                      issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. 

A3     :         Fee receipt dated 07.04.2008 for ` 40,000 issued by the opposite

                     party in the name of the complainant.

A4     :         Mahatma Gandhi University examination calendar for the year

                      2008.

A5     :         Photocopy of the Notification (Time-table) dated 04.01.2008 of

                     the first semester MBA degree examination  published by the

                     M.G. University.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1 :`       Dr. James Joseph.

DW2 :         B. Asok Kumar.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1     :         Photocopy of the application dated 18.03.2008 sent by the

                     complainant to the opposite party

                     the return of the original certificates.

B2     :         Copy of the order No. AC-A1/1/311/2004 dated 20.11.2004 of 

                      M.G. University of the Registrar, M.G. University, Kottayam. 

B3     :         Prospectus of MBA course of the opposite party.

B4     :         Second semester attendance register of MBA students (2007- 

                    2009).       

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                                  (Sd)

                                                                                         Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Beena. C., Mulayara House, Angadickal South P.O.,

                      Angadickal Village, Adoor Taluk.

       (2) Director, St. John’s College, Priyadarsini Hills, Prakkanam P.O.,

                       Pathanamthitta – 689 643.

                 (3) The Stock File.