BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd of November 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.67/2010
(Admitted on 20.02.2010)
Sri.B.V.Mahesh Chandra,
So. B.V.Vishkantaiah,
44 years,
News Co oridinator,
Kasturi T.V,
Kasturi Medias Private Ltd.,
Bangalore.
Resident of
Dyavamma Bettegowda Nilaya,
L.V. Bakery, Advalli, Main Road,
Hassan 573 201. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt. Manjula N.A.)
VERSUS
The Chairman,
Alva s Group of Educational Institution,
Mudubidre. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.Deenanath Shetty).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, on 09.05.2007 to get education to his son Prajwal Mahesh Chandra in Opposite Party Institution took admission to PUC (P.C.M.E) for the academic year 2007-08 and paid a sum of Rs.12,275/- towards tuition fees including other funds like development fund, charitable trust fund, insurance, hostel deposit and conveyance and uniform charges. It is submitted that, after 15 days of admission of his son, he was subjected to ragging in the hostel by the senior in-mates and he was put to mental illness and became ill and developed home sick and he could not continue his studies in the college of the Opposite Party. It is stated that, after admission to the Opposite Party institution his son became dull in all sphere to continue his education in the college of the Opposite Party and thereafter he was shifted to Venkateswara College at Hassan for continuation of his study. The Complainant has appraised his inability to continue in the institution of the Opposite Party and demanded refund of the payment of fees by approaching personally and in writing. But the Opposite Party consented to give T.C. and refund of the fees paid. But the Opposite Party refunded only Rs.2,000/- paid towards the hostel expenses and except the above said amount nothing has been refunded to the Complainant and contended that the non-refund of the amount by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.10,275/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with legal charges of Rs.5,000/- and in all claimed Rs.25,275/- along with interest.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version, admitted that the Complainant had joined the Pre-University College run by the Opposite Party for the first year and got admission. He was allotted the seat for P.C.M.E. on 09.05.2007 and also admitted that the Complainant had paid the requisite fee to the Pre-University College run by the Opposite Party.
It is stated that, the son of the Complainant not subjected to any ragging in the hostel by the alleged senior in-mates. The Complainant’s son not intimated to the Opposite Party either orally or in writing at any point of time. Not a single case of ragging in the premises of the college or in hostel had been reported on any point of time in the year 2007-08. The Opposite Party institution is not aware of anything as to the so called mental as well as physical illness. It is also denied that, this Opposite Party had accorded their consent for the refund of the amount paid towards fee by the Complainant. It is stated that, the amount paid is not refundable, wherein, a forfeiture clause has been incorporated under the declaration by the guardian and in view of the forfeiture clause, this Opposite Party is not liable to refund the amount. It is stated that, the Opposite Party college is collected only nominal fee and the chain of institution run by the Opposite Party being unaided and consequently being a non-recipient of any aid or grant from either any University or University Grants Commission and stated that there is no deficiency whatsoever and the amount claimed by the Complainant is not refundable and not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.B.V.Mahesh Chandra (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C19 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Mohan Alva (RW1), Chairman of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Opposite Party produced 3 (three) documents as listed in the annexure. Both parties produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant came up with this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party stating that his son Prajwal Mahesh Chandra admitted to PUC – P.C.M.E. course in the academic year 2007-08 and the seat was allotted to the student Prajwal on 09.05.2007 and paid Rs.12,275/- as follows:
Development Fund Rs.5,000/-
College Fees Rs.1,970/-
Charitable Trust Fund Rs.250/-
Hostel Deposit and Conveyance Rs.4,000/-
Uniform Charges Rs.800/-
Insurance Rs.155/-
Application fees Rs.100/-
Now the allegation of the Complainant is that, after 15 days of admission of the son of the Complainant, he was subjected to ragging in the hostel by the Senior in-mates of the hostel and the son of the Complainant was put to mental illness and physically became ill and developed home sick and he could not continue his studies in the college of the Opposite Party as he lost all sorts of enthusiastic approaches towards studies. Thereafter the Complainant got his son shifted to Venkateshwara College at Hassan for further continuation of his study. It is stated that, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and appraised his son and his inability to continue in the institution and demanded refund of the payment of the fees paid by him but the Opposite Party refunded only Rs.2,000/- and rest of the amount not paid, hence came up with this complaint.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party stated that there is no deficiency whatsoever and there is no reason to discontinue the studies and contended that in view of the forfeiture clause i.e., the fees once paid shall not be refunded and the Complainant had given a declaration to that effect, hence they are not entitled any fee paid by them.
The Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C19. Opposite Party also filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced three (3) documents.
The Complainant in the instant case, admittedly paid Rs.12,275/-, wherein, the Opposite Party refunded Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that after 15 days of admission of the son of the Complainant, he was subjected to ragging in the hostel and put mental illness etc. etc. but there is no cogent/material evidence available on record to prove the above allegations.
No doubt, the Complainant in the instant case admittedly paid Rs.5,000/- towards college development fund, Rs.1,970/- which includes P.U. Board admission fee, registration fee, tuition fee, laboratory fee and special fees in total Rs.1,970/- was paid, Rs.2,000/- paid towards hostel deposit (refundable) and Rs.2,000/- paid as conveyance, Rs.800/- paid towards the uniform and Rs.155/- paid towards insurance, Rs.100/- paid towards the application fee. Out of the above said amount, the Opposite Party refunded Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.
From the entire concept of the case and documents placed on record, we find that, the Complainant miserably failed to establish by leading cogent evidence to show that the Opposite Party Institution committed deficiency in service. The Complainant contended that, after 15 days of the admission of his son, he was subjected to ragging in the hostel by the senior in-mates of the hostel, thereby put to mental illness and physically became ill. Except the oral assertion nothing has been placed on record to establish that the son of the Complainant was subjected to ragging either by producing a FIR or any other documents in support of the above allegations. Any person alleging a fact must establish the same by leading cogent evidence and it cannot be deemed to have been established merely stating that the son of the Complainant was subjected to ragging in the hostel by the senior in-mates of the hostel of the Opposite Party institution and thereby committed deficiency. It is a settled position of law that, until and unless the deficiency is proved, neither the Court nor any Tribunal/FORA has the competence to decide the matter in contravention of statutory provision.
In the instant case, the Complainant has miserably failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Institution. On the contrary, the Opposite Party took a contention in their version by stating that, the Complainant as well as his son given a declaration stating that both are abide by all the rules and discipline of the college in force and also pay all the fees and dues to the college in time and moreover the Complainant who is the father of the student given a declaration that he is fully aware of the Rules and Regulations of the College and therefore responsible for violation of rules/mis-behaviour and agree to withdraw him/her from the college under such circumstances and also given a declaration that fees once paid shall not be refunded.
It is a well known fact that, all educational institutions have their own set of rules and regulations governing various aspects of their management, schedule of fee payment and discipline. Compliance with these rules and regulations is necessary for smooth and efficient functioning of school/colleges as well as for its reputation. In the instant case, the Complainant given a declaration that, he and his son is abide by all rules and regulations governing various aspects of the Opposite Party institution. Under that circumstances, the Complainant cannot revoke that rules and regulations until and unless the allegation of deficiency is proved. It is a settled position that, Consumer Forums are not the Courts of plenary jurisdiction, they cannot strike down the provisions of any act, rules or clauses of any lawful agreement entered into between the parties. The Complainant admittedly entered into a forfeiture clause with the Opposite Party. The Complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service against the Opposite Party, under that circumstances, this FORA has no jurisdiction to strike down the forfeiture clause mentioned in the application which has been duly signed by the parties herein the Complainant.
In view of the above discussions, we hold that the Complainant miserably failed to establish the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party institution. Under that circumstances, the Complainant is not entitled the relief claimed in this complaint. Hence deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of November 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.B.V.Mahesh Chandra – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 09.05.2007: Xerox copy of the receipt for Rs.5,000/-.
Ex C2 – 09.05.2007: Xerox copy of the receipt for Rs.250/-.
Ex C3 – 09.05.2007: Xerox copy of the receipt for Rs.1,970/-.
Ex C4 – 12.06.2007: Xerox copy of the receipt for Rs.4,000/-.
Ex C5 – 30.06.2007: Xerox copy of the receipt for Rs.955/-.
Ex C6 – 09.05.2007: Xerox copy of the receipt for Rs.100/-.
Ex C7 – 09.05.2007: Seat allotment slip.
Ex C8 – 11.07.2007: Mess charges for Rs.980/-.
Ex C9 – 11.07.2007: Letter of warden.
Ex C10 – 10.09.2007: Letter of Alva’s hostel with cover.
Ex C11 – 10.07.2007: Copy of the letter of request of the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex C12 – 10.07.2007: Request letter of the Complainant’s son to the Principal of the Opposite Party institution.
Ex C13 – 31.08.2007: Request letter of the Complainant to the Chairman of the Opposite Party along with courier receipt.
Ex C14 – 22.09.2007: Request letter of the Complainant to the Chairman of the Opposite Party.
Ex C15 – 01.11.2007: Request letter of the Complainant to the Chairman of the Opposite Party.
Ex C16 – 24.06.2008: Request letter of the Complainant to the Chairman of the Opposite Party along with postal acknowledgement.
Ex C17 – 18.07.2008: Lawyer’s notice sent to the Opposite Party on behalf of the Complainant along with postal acknowledgement.
Ex C18 – 09.05.2007: Cover of the Opposite Party showing payment of Rs.7,220/-.
Ex C19 - : Xerox copy of the express news service on 31.05.2008 consisting of order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Mr.Mohan Alva, Chairman of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
1) 10.07.2007: Request letter of the Complainant to the Chairman of the Opposite Party.
2) 09.05.2007: Application form.
3) 09.06.2007: Request letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Dated:23.11.2010 PRESIDENT
