THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JUNE, 2024

APPEAL NO.50/2018

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

Vishwanath.T.N,

C/o Chanchala Lakshmi,

No.2, STB Complex,                                            ...Appellant/s

Near Anekal Court Complex,

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru-562 106

(By Sri.R.Chandrashekar, Advocate)

-Versus-

1.      The Chairman,

          Narayana Hrudayalaya

          Foundations, #258/A,                          ...Respondent/s

Bommasandra Industrial Area,

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru -560 099

2.      The Principal,

          Narayana Hrudayalaya

          Foundations,

Para Medical Courses, #258/A,                              

Bommasandra Industrial Area,

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru -560 099

(By Sri.Deepak S.Sarangamath, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Complainant in complaint No.2007/2015 preferred this appeal against the dismissal order passed by the 1^st Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru and submits that his son has admitted to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 institutions for the DLMT course, at the time of admission, the complainant had paid the entire course fee of Rs.45,000/-, but subsequently due to his ill-health he was not able to attend the first year exams and subsequently he was not able to continue the course also, for which this complainant sought for refund of the amount in paid towards future two years course amounting to Rs.45,000/-. But the Opposite Parties refused to pay the said amount hence he approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of the above said amount along with interest on the paid amount.

2. The District Commission after trial had dismissed the complaint holding there is no deficiency in service and also holding that the educational institutions are not fall within the purview of the CP Act. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. In fact this complainant’s son had not utilized any services for the future two years, he had attended only one year and sought for refund of the future two years fee. In fact the Opposite Parties Institutions ought not to collect the future fee at the time of admission itself. In this case, they have collected future fee of two years, inspite of non utilization of the said services, the Opposite Parties have not returned the fee. The District Commission failed to appreciate the said facts. Hence the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint by directing the Opposite Parties to pay the above said amount, in the interest of justice and equity.  

3. Heard from both sides. 

4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that, he had with an intention to study DLMT course as admitted to these Opposite Parties/Respondents institution. The said course is for three years, at the time of admission, the Opposite Parties/Respondents institution has collected the entire course amounting to Rs.30,000/-, totally the complainant had paid Rs.45,000/- to DLMT course. Unfortunately, he was not able to attend the exams of the first year and subsequently he was discontinued the course. The said nonappearance before the exams was only due to ill-health it is due lack of attendance whereas the complainant says he had some health issues, no medical records produced.  Anyhow, subsequently the complainant’s son discontinued further course, subsequently he sought for refund. The refund was declined by the respondent’s institution.

5. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the District Commission. The District Commission after hearing also dismissed the complaint of the complainant. For the reason that, there is no deficiency in service, ofcourse the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. We found there is negligence on the part of student himself who had not attended regular classes for the first year and exams was not taken up. Further he voluntarily discontinued the studies, for which the Opposite Parties are not responsible for the refund of fee amounts; the reason for discontinuation was not explained properly. We do not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in collecting the entire course fee at the time of admission by the respondents. Rules and Regulations of the institutions are binding on both parties. Mere discontinuing the course will not create the ground for refund of the fee paid. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint and we do not find any valid reasons in the appeal to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. As such no interference is required and the appeal is dismissed.  Accordingly the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order dated 24-11-2017 passed by the 1^st Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.2007/2015 is confirmed.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member