Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/262

Sri. A. Shashidharan S/o. Late Appavu "Veerabhadra Nilaya" - Complainant(s)

Versus

The chairman/Vice Chancellor /Principal Alliance College of University - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

10 Sep 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 06.02.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 10.09.2018

 

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.262/2014

DATED THIS THE 10^th SEPTEMBER OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.A.Shashidharan

S/o Late Appavu

‘Veerabhadra Nilaya’

Behind Government Hospital, Hosur-Sarjapura Road,

Attibele, Bengaluru-107.

 

Inperson      

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

The Chairman/

Vice Chancellor/Principal Alliance College of University,

2^nd cross, 36^th main,

Dollars Scheme,

BTM I stage,

Bengaluru-68.

 

By Advocates M/s.Cyril Prasad Pais & Associates Advocates

 

 

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 pay principal amount Rs.26,000/-; Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with interest at 5% from 20.05.13.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, the Complainant with an intention to get study of his daughter S.Apsara for MFM course (hereinafter referred to as the said course), met one Usha Rani Madam and Miss.Shruthi who are in admission department and they asked him to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as token advance and another Rs.1,000/- as administration charges. Accordingly he deposited the said amount. The Complainant further submits that, in the month of Aug 2013, the said Usha madam informed him the MFM course would be commencing with effect from 02.09.13 and asked to send his daughter for the course. Unfortunately his daughter on that day was suffering from fever and severe head-ache. With great difficulty, he took her to the college, considering the day as an opening day. She was in the function nearly for 2 hours. Then she came out of the college and requested him to take her to home to go to hospital. The next day she has been hospitalized and unable to join the college for course. The matter has been informed to the said madam in detail. He also informed her to refund a sum of Rs.26,000/- considering his practical problem.  Since a considerable time has passed no action has been taken by her inspite of his repeated personal visits and telephone calls. On 13.11.13, he sent his daughter directly to the said madam for collection of money. In the office the said Usha Rani along with her assistant Shruthi got together and shouted to her daughter as she had joined at Christ college. They further commented that the management has already decided not to refund the initial payment to such kind of students those who were not respecting the college. In this situation, he started calling Usha madam on her mobile as many times for clarification and further action to refund of his money. But she intentionally did not respond to his calls. As a matter of fact, her daughter has not been joined anywhere as they alleged. On 19.12.13, he went to the college and met her in the presence of college Principal and they discussed regarding the refund. He also served the letter dt.07.11.13 to her in front of the Principal for necessary payment. During the course of discussion, she created a serious scene and un-pleasant things inside her cabin which he never expected. She flatly refused to refund without any reason. Immediately the Principal of the college interfered and assured him their co-operation at all times and also instructed to Usha madam to do the needful. At last, she came to a conclusion to refund his amount of Rs.26,000/- on 08.01.14 after Christmas holidays. But till now, no action was taken to refund. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear and filed version denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant.  The sum and substance of the version filed by Op is that, Complainant’s daughter name called Ms.A.S.Apsara applied for and got admission in to the Master of Financial Management (MFM) course which commenced from 02.09.13. The said Apsara is not a party to the above case. Therefore on this ground also, the complaint is not maintainable. It is also the case of the Op that, the said Apsara attended one-day induction program at the university. According to university rules, students are required to pay tuition fee before the commencement of the course but she had only paid the initial registration fee and not paid the tuition fee. While registering her name, Op has specifically stated the terms & conditions stating that, once the registration fee is paid at any circumstances is not refundable, for which she was agreed. When the classes were started, Complainant’s daughter neither attended the class nor paid tuition fee. On telephonic calls she was not properly responded. At late she approached Op for refund of registration fees. Further Op university is running institution without any aid of the Government and once the seat is reserved will be kept block throughout the academic year.  Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint holding that there is no merit in the case so also there is no cause of action to approach by knocking the door of this forum to get redress her remedy on untenable grounds.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 2 documents. Authorized Representative of Op filed affidavit evidence and produced 4 documents. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

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 Negative.  

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

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Op. The undisputed facts which reveal from the parties goes to show that, Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to Op to get register his daughter’s name to the said course. As the Complainant’s daughter was fell ill, hence she could not pursue her studies much less to attend the class in the Op University. In this context, he wrote a letter for refund of Rs.25,000/- being paid towards registration fees. According to the case of the Complainant, official attached to Op university name called Smt.Usha Rani informed that, since it is only registration fee, is not refundable. In this context, it was made known to the Complainant and his daughter by way of issuing brochures and prospectus of the Op university. The terms & conditions incorporated for admission is clearly mentioned in the brochure stating that registration fee for the entire course was not refundable under any circumstances and the Complainant and his daughter agreed for the same. Further, Op by telephonic message informed to the Complainant and his daughter to pursue her education in Op University for selected course, but they did not respond. When such being the fact, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Op. Hence, we find there is considerable force in the contention taken by Op on the ground that, while issuing the prospectus, it is made known to the Complainant and his daughter in respect of the non-refundable clause of the registration fee for the amount of Rs.25,000/-. This case is not in respect of refund of tuition fee if any paid by the Complainant. As per the policy condition of the Op, the registration fee will not be refundable by Op University under any circumstances. The primary object of this stipulation is to discourage frivolous application. Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Op in not refunding of Rs.25,000/- being the registration fee much less Rs.1,000/- being administration charges to the Complainant. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

  

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

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 10^th September 2018).

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

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

 

Sri.A.Shashidharan, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.no.1	Letter to Op dtd.07.11.13
Doc.no.2	Tuition fee as of the registration instalment Rs.25,000/-

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Rajesh Shetty, who being the Authorized Representative of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Doc.no.1	Authorization letter
Doc.no.2	Prospectus of Op college
Doc.no.3	Fee structure and schedule of payment
Doc.no.4	Terms & conditions

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT