Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/50/2018

N.Sundeep Chandra, S/o N.C.S.M.Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Correspondent, Gayatri Degree and PG College - Opp.Party(s)

National Association of Consumer (NAC)

21 Mar 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 11.07.2018

Order Date:21.03.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.50/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Sri.N.Sudeep Chandra,

Aged 22 years,

S/o. N.C.S.M.Prasad,

No.581, Balaji Colony,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

The Correspondent,

Gayatri Degree and PG College,

No.164, Prakasam Road,

Tirupati – 517 501.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.02.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing The President, National Association of Consumers (NAC), for complainant, and Sri.M.Purushotham Reddy, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, with the following allegations -  

            2.  The complainant had studied B.Sc (Biotechnology) degree course in Gayatri Degree and P.G. College (opposite party herein), Tirupati, which is a registered education society under Societies Act 1860. The main aim of the opposite party is to provide education to all the eligible students on no loss and no profit basis. As per the fee chart issued by opposite party, complainant paid total fee of Rs.78,200/- for three years, as detailed hereunder:

a.	Rs.11,900/-, Rs.12,900/- and Rs.12,900/- respectively each year for three years towards tuition fee.
b.	Rs.4,500/- each year for three years towards University and Lab Fee.
c.	Rs.3,600/- each year for three years towards material fee.
d.	Rs.3,000/-, Rs.3,600/- and Rs.3,600/- respectively each year for three years towards communication skills fee.
e.	Rs.2,000/- each year for three years towards LCD projector fee.

     

            As part of fee, an amount of Rs.10,800/- (Rs.3,600/- per year x 3 years) was collected by the opposite party towards material fee, but no material was supplied except four practical records and two books for Computer Applications and English only, which hardly costs Rs.500/- per year in the first and second year. Thus total cost of all books for two years comes to Rs.1,000/- only. In the third and final year no material was provided except six practical records and two books for computer applications only, which hardly costs Rs.800/-. Thus total cost of all books provided by the opposite party during three years degree course was Rs.1800/-. Thus opposite party had collected Rs.9,000/- in excess from the complainant for three years. Towards communication skills, opposite party had collected Rs.3,000/- for the           1^st year, Rs.3,600/- for 2^nd year and Rs.3,600/- for 3^rd year respectively. But no communication skills were taught by any trainer. Opposite party is not supposed to collect such special fee. An amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.2000/- x 3 years) was collected towards LCD projector fee. But there were only 4 LCD projectors for both Degree and PG students numbering 600. The opposite party has collected Rs.36,00,000/-  during three years of course from all the students on the pretext of LCD projector fee. The total cost of each projector is Rs.25,000/- x 4 LCD projectors, which comes to Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, opposite party looted Rs.35,00,000/- in three years, by illegally collecting fee towards LCD projectors from the students. Several times the complainant approached the correspondent for refund of the excess fee collected, but they refused to refund the same. Finally, he got issued notice dt:27.02.2018 for which opposite party issued reply dt:28.04.2018 with false contentions. Hence, complainant is seeking direction to opposite party, to return the fee amount Rs.27,000/- with interest at 24% from 03.08.2014, Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental torture to complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            3.  Opposite party filed the written version contending as follows – At the outset complaint allegations are denied in toto. It is stated that complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of C.P.Act and therefore complaint is not maintainable. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant’s claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant’s claim for refund of fee after completion of course is totally untenable. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The opposite party never collected any amounts illegally and never committed any act of unfair trade practice and never caused inconvenience to the students. The allegations made in paras.3 and 4 of the complaint with regard to collection of excess fee is denied. Likewise the allegations in para.5 of the complaint that Rs.10,800/- was collected for three years towards communication skills, but not given any training in communication skills through skilled person is also false. With regard to allegations in para.6 of the complaint that they have collected Rs.6,000/- towards LCD projector fee and that only four LCD projectors were made available in the entire college for both Degree and PG students numbering 600, and that total fee of Rs.36,00,000/- collected from all the students without providing LCD projectors is also denied. It is also denied that opposite party has looted public money of Rs.35,00,000/- by illegally collecting towards LCD projectors from all the students. The complaint is devoid of merits and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

            4.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of opposite party R.W.1, P.Ravi Venkatesh, correspondent of opposite party college filed the chief affidavit. No documents are filed on behalf of opposite party.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?  

            6. Point:-  Complainant in the written arguments contended that opposite party is registered under Societies Act 1860, and therefore it is expected to run the institution on no profit and no loss basis, but it indulged in commercial activities by collecting abnormal fee from the students, and therefore committed unfair trade practice and the services rendered by the opposite party are also deficient, and as such complainant being a consumer is entitled to seek compensation.

7.  It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs.78,200/- to opposite party towards total fee covering three years degree course. The details are hereunder:

a.	Rs.11,900/-, Rs.12,900/- and Rs.12,900/- respectively each year for three years towards tuition fee.
b.	Rs.4,500/- each year for three years towards University and Lab Fee.
c.	Rs.3,600/- each year for three years towards material fee.
d.	Rs.3,000/-, Rs.3,600/- and Rs.3,600/- respectively each year for three years towards communication skills fee.
e.	Rs.2,000/- each year for three years towards LCD projector fee.

 

            It is the contention of complainant that opposite party has collected Rs.10,800/- (Rs.3600/- per year x 3 years) towards material fee, but they supplied the material worth Rs.500/- per year for two years and in the third and final year no material was provided to him, except six practical records and two books for computer applications, which costs Rs.800/- only. It is further contended that during three years B.Sc degree course, opposite party has collected Rs.3,000/- in the first year, Rs.3,600/- in the second year and Rs.3,600/- in the third year, for imparting training in communication skills, but no communication skills were taught by appointing skilled trainer. It is further contended that only 4 LCD projectors were there in entire college for Degree and PG students numbering 600. The opposite party collected Rs.6,000/- (Rs.2,000/- per year for 3 years) from all the students and got Rs.36,00,000/-, but they spent only Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing 4 LCD projectors, each worth of Rs.25,000/- and thus looted remaining public money of Rs.35,00,000/- collected in three years. The complainant therefore prays to return the fee amount of Rs.27,000/- (Material fee of Rs.10,800/- + Communication skills fee of Rs.10,200/- + LCD projector fee of Rs.6,000/-) with interest at 24% from 03.08.2014. In addition to that complainant is seeking Rs.14,00,000/- towards compensation for undergoing mental torture due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            8.  The allegations were denied by the opposite party.

            9.  There is no dispute that the complainant studied in the opposite party and passed the course. Ex.A1 is fee chart dt:03.08.2014 issued by opposite party, there is no dispute about the same. Ex.A2 is bunch of fee receipts 14 in number, issued by the opposite party for Rs.4,500/-, Rs.6,600/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.4,000/-, Rs.3,900/-, Rs.6,800/-, Rs.8,700/-, Rs.4,500/-, Rs.4,200/-, Rs.7,200/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.8,700/-, Rs.7,200/- and Rs.2,000/-. These bills are also not in dispute, as the same were issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 is notice dt:27.02.2018 issued by the complainant to the Correspondent / Principal of opposite party college. Ex.A4 is reply notice dt:28.04.2018 issued by opposite party denying the contentions raised in Ex.A3. It is not in dispute that complainant after passing the degree course from opposite party, choose to file this complaint making allegations against the opposite party college. If really, the complainant suffered any loss due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, he would have filed the complaint much earlier, but for the reasons best known to the complainant, he did not choose to file the complaint during the course of his studies in the college, but only after completing the course successfully, choose to file this complaint against the opposite party. There is no evidence to show that opposite party had promised to supply certain material to the complainant and that they failed to keep-up their promise without supplying the material. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that opposite party failed to impart training in communication skills to the complainant and other students by appointing special trainer for developing communication skills. As already stated by us, the complainant had successfully completed three year degree course. It shows that opposite party has given sufficient training to him to develop communication skills. Regarding LCD projectors, there is no evidence to show that opposite party had collected Rs.36,00,000/- from all the students and spent only Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing        4 LCD projectors and the remaining amount was taken away by the management of opposite party without showing accounts. It appears that there are 600 students in the college and none of them have come forward with any complaint against the college. The complainant alone has filed this complaint against the opposite party, making allegations regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is not the case of the complainant that he failed to obtain degree course certificate on account of poor standards maintained by the opposite party. Having got admission in the opposite party college and having studied for three years and passing the examinations, it is open for the complainant now to contend that he suffered mental agony due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party college. In order to succeed, complainant ought to have produced the documents to show that what is the minimum fee to be collected by the opposite party and how much excess money was collected by the opposite party from the students. That evidence is very much lacking in this complaint. Hence, we are of the view that complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.                    

9.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                                         

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 21^st day of March, 2019.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                       

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

PW-1: Nemalikanti Sudeep Chandra (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: P. Ravi Venkatesh (Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Fees Chart Dated 03.08.2014 issued by the Opposite Party (Student Copy in Original).
	Original copy of Fee Receipts (14) issued by the Opposite Party.
	Office copy of Notice Dt: 27.02.2018 issued by the Opposite Party.
	Reply Notice Dt: 28.04.2018 issued by the Advocate of the Opposite Party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

  

 

                                                                                                                         Sd/-      

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

   

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.