DATE OF FILING :04/01/16 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of March 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 7/2016 

Between

Complainant                : 1 .   Amal Kuriakose,

                                                                     Madappillil House,

                                                                      Pazhanganadu, Kizhakkambalam P.O.,

                                                                      Ernakulam District, Pin – 683 562

                                                              2 .   M.V.Kuriakose,

                                                                      Madappillil House,

                                                                      Pazhanganadu, Kizhakkambalam P.O.,

                                                                      Ernakulam District, Pin – 683 562

(Both by Adv:  K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party                                   :  1 .   The Director,

                                                                         D.C.Kizhakkemuri Edam,

                                                                         Goodshepherd Street,

                                                                         Kottayam, Pin 686 001. 

                                                                  2 . The Principal,

                                                                        D.C.School of Management and Technology,

                                                                        One School Avenue,

                                                                        Pullikkanam, Wagaman,

                                                                        Idukki District, Pin – 685 503.

(Both by Adv: Thomas P.Makil, Adv.Bobby John K.A., Adv.Asha Antony)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

First complainant is the son of second complainant.  Complainant got admission for the course of MBA in 2014-2016 batch, conducted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 being the Director and Principal respectively. It DC School of Management and Technology.  At the time of admission complainant remitted an amount of Rs.292,150/- by way of course fee and other fees as demanded   by   the   first   opposite   party.   The   admission   procedure   was

                                                                                                                          (Cont....2)

-2-

conducted by the opposite parties at their office at Kottayam.  But unfortunately the first complainant had discontinued the course due to the climate condition of Vagaman, where the institution was situated which adversely affected to his health.  Thereafter the first complainant requested for the course fee and certificate to the opposite parties institution.  But the opposite parties denied to refund the course fee at the same time the opposite parties returned the certificate of the complainant on the basis of a written request of the complainant as the opposite parties demanded.  Against the act of non-refund of course fee, the complainant approached this Forum alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the first opposite party  and prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the course fee  along with cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version, contenting that the complainant having discontinued the course after the commencement of the classes and the seat remaining unfilled, therefore, the complainant is not eligible for refund as per AICTE guidelines and judicial proceedents. Opposite parties further contented that first complainant was admitted to the A-Batch of MBA programmes.  The classes commenced on 21/07/14.  He was found to be absent without any reason after the classes commenced.  It was only later that the Management realized that the first complainant had abandoned the course on his own  volition, when he served a letter dated 05/08/14.  The reason stated by the first  complainant for discontinuing the course is not at all believable because he and his father is well aware of the climate condition of Vagaman, since they are residing only  50 Kms away from this place.  Opposite parties  further contented that, at the time of serving the letter, the first complainant was made aware that the refund policy is strictly governed by the AICTE, guidelines and such other norms promulgated for the refund.   The complainant left in the institution assuring that he will return later for the non objection certificate, which he has to mandatory receive from the various departments of the institution.  It was thereafter that the management received a letter dated 16/11/15 from the second complainant seeking refund of the fees.  Except this letter, no prior  request was ever preferred by the complainants to the management, nor had the management ever agreed to refund the fees  deferred the payment and account of financial difficulties as  stated in the complaint.  Against this notice, the management of the institution send a reply to the second complainant by

                                                                                                                           (Cont....3)

-3-

 

denying their stand, as per the existing norms, the management is not under any obligation to refund any amount to the complainant.  However, in the said reply it was made clear that  as a part of their internal refund policy  propelled by humanitarian considerations, they are prepared to refund an amount of Rs.82,612 by deducting mess charge of Rs.6,088/-, vehicle fees of Rs.250/-, hostel and utility fees of Rs.4,200/- and course fees of Rs.1,99,000/-for the first year,  from the total amount of Rs.2,92,150/- which was remitted by the complainant as fees.

 

Opposite parties further contented that the admission process is always taken care of at the admissions office at Kottayam, owing to its accessibility and convenience, especially  since it also caters to the Trivandrum Campus.  More over DCSMAT being under the aegis of the DC group, which is having its centre of operations at DC Kizhakkemuri edom, Kottayam, it is only a matter of administrative convenience that the Admissions Office is also located there.  Opposite parties further contented that  as per the AICTE guideline, if the candidate  has left the course after the commencement of the preparatory Bridge Course the  classes and if that seat has remained vacant, thereafter such a student is not entitled for refund whatsoever.  The first complainant had quit, after the commencement of the preparatory Bridge Course classes.  Thereafter when the classes resumed on 21/07/2014, he was found to be absent without any reason after the classes commenced.  Hence it is very important  that as on 05/08/14, the total class strength was 121, including the first complainant.  Thereafter the final enrolment list was submitted by the Management to the University pertaining to the 2014 MBA Programme on 14th November 2014.  On  comparing these two lists it is clear that the seat of the first complainant was never filled thereafter under the above said circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get the fees refunded.  Hence it is clear that the opposite parties has not only acted as per the provisions of the AICTE and the opposite parties is  not liable to refund the amount to the complainant. 

 

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Second complainant was examined as  PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 were marked.  Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are the copy of documents received from the

                                                                                                                          (Cont....4)

-4-

 

opposite parties institution and receipts dated 05/06/14 and 26/04/14 respectively, Ext.P3 is the copy of Medical certificate dated 25/07/14, Ext.P4 is the copy of letter dated 16/11/15.  From the defence side the Director of opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R9 were marked.  Ext.R1 is the copy of Common Application Form of opposite parties institution, Ext.R2 is the copy Course Registration Form, Ext.R3 is the request letter given by the first complainant dated 05/08/14, Ext.R4 is the copy of reply sent by the second opposite party, to the father of the complainant dated 30/01/16, Ext.R5 is the copy of policy on retention of original certificates and refund/deduction of fees of discontinued student and guidelines of AICTE, Ext.R6 and Ext.R7 are the copy of attendance registration, Ext.R8 is the copy of final enrolment list of the MBA batch 2014-15 submitted before the University, Ext.R9 is the attendance register copy produced. 

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- we have carefully considered the submission made by the parties and perused the documents filed.  It is an admitted fact that the first complainant took admission in MBA course for the session 2014-2016 in the opposite parties institution.  He paid a sum of Rs.2,92,150/- at the time of admission towards course fees in advance.  The classes were commenced on 30/06/14, and the first complainant attended for two weeks.  The learned counsel for the complainants argued that the first complainant fell ill and admitted in the hospital, and the doctor who was treated by him observed that, the climate, where the institution is situated is badly affected his health.  The concerned doctor issued Ext.P4 Medical Certificate, opining that “ the complainant is suffering from Broanched Asthma, Exposure  to cold climate condition is aggravating his illness.  He is advised to study in a place were the weather condition suits him”.  This letter was issued by the doctor on 25/07/14.   The learned counsel further argued that as per the direction of the Mahatma Gandhi University,  where the said course is affiliated, the class would   be   commenced   on  01/08/14.   But  the  opposite  parties  institution

                                                                                                                            (Cont....5)

-5-

started classes on 30/06/14.  While on cross examination, DW1 the Director of the opposite parties institution  clarified that before starting the course as the date prescribed by the University, the institute  will commence Bridge Course with the consent of  the University, and thereafter the classes will begin as per the University Syllabus.  The learned counsel further stated that, as per the records and the deposition of the DW1, none other than the Director of opposite parties institution, the date fixed for starting this course as per University Syllabus was 21/07/14.  But they started bridge course on 30/06/14, and the complainant attended classes in 2 weeks.  Due to the climate condition he forced to withdrawn from the course and intimated the matter to the opposite parties.  The learned counsel further pointed out that Ext.R8 is the details of admitted strength of students of MBA course for the session 2014-2016, send by the opposite parties institution to the University.  This is the final list of admitted students .  On perusing the list it is seen that even though the seat allotted is 180, only 120 students got admitted in this course, except the first complainant.  That means before the preparation of or submission  of final list before the University, the first complainant was excluded from the list.  Hence no question of any filling of vacant seats are happened herein, because nearly 60 seats are vacant.  The learned counsel further pointed out the guidelines of AICTE which is produced by the opposite parties  and marked as Ext.R5.  On perusing this documents it is seen that condition 'd' says that “if the institute run the course in full capacity of 180 students and a student quits after starting the course as per University Schedule and the seat not filled by another candidates the entire course fee and acted expenses can be deducted.  But if another student join and fills that seat, then the amount should be refunded after deducting monthly course fee and actual expenses of food, hostel etc”.

 

Clause (b) says that if a student joins the course and program starts on June 20th and if he quits by July 20th and date of commencing the class as per University schedule is on August 1st, then entire fee must be refunded after deducting Rs.1000/- as processing fees plus actual expenses of food, hostel etc because as per the University schedule, the course starts only on 1st August.

 

On perusing the condition of AICTE and the case in hand, we can see that, condition No.'d' is applicable here in, because it is an admitted fact that in this course 60 seats are vacant, and the first complainant withdrawn from the

                                                                                                                            (Cont....6)

-6-

course before commencing the classes, squarely applicable in the case also.

 

On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties  vehemently argued that, he was found to be absent without any reason after the classes commenced.  It was only later that the management realized that the first complainant had abandoned the course on his own volition when he served a letter to there Director dated 05/08/14.  Thereafter the management received a letter dated 16/11/15 from the second complainant seeking refund of the amount paid to the institution.  Except the letter dated 05/08/14, no prior requests was ever preferred by the complainant to the management of the institution, nor had the management even agreed to return the entire amount or deferred the payment on account of financial difficulties as averred in the complaint.  The learned counsel further argued that the first complainant had quit after the commencement of class, and that the said seat has remained unfilled.  Thereafter for strengthening the plea, opposite parties filed Ext.R9 attendances register from 01/07/14 to 12/07/14.  The learned counsel further argued that the complainant was fully aware of the climate condition of Wagamon, where the institution is situated.  Before taking admission the complainant having read over the rules and regulations from the prospectus and made their declaration and got admitted.  Hence the question of refund of course fees does not arise at all.  Complaint is devoid of merit and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

In the instant case it is an admitted fact that, the classes where the first complainant got admission was commenced on 21/07/14, as per the syllabus of the University.  Before commencing classes as per University norms complainant withdrawn from the course due to his health problems.  From Ext.R9 the attendance register of Bridge Course, it is seen that the complainant attended the Bridge Course is cannot be considered as a commencement of MBA course 2014-2016, since no evidence is produced by the opposite parties to convince that the classes are started with the consent of university.  More over in the reply version opposite parties stated that as a part of its internal refund policy propelled by humanitarian consideration, they prepared to refund Rs.82,612/-, by deducting the first year course fee of 1,99,000/- and other fees from the total amount of Rs.2,92,150/- which is received from the complainants.

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont....7)

-7-

 

Here it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties are well aware that the first complainant quit the course before commencing the classes as stipulated by the University.  At the time of withdrawal of the complainant, there is 60 seats are vacant in this course.  Hence no question of any filling of vacancy due to the withdrawal of the complainant has arises.  More over the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) clearly mention that student /candidate withdrawing from a programme before the starting of the course should be refunded the entire course fee collected after deduction of a processing fees of not more than Rs.1000/-.  In this case we are referring the decision of the Honourable National Commission in the matter of international school of Business  and another Vs Somdatta Das IV 2(018) CPJ 288 (NC).

 

Having carefully evaluating the evidences on record and the arguments advanced by both the parties, and in the light of the guidelines issued by the University Grant Commission, vide public notice dated 23/04/2007, and in view of Ext.R5 guidelines of AICTE.  The Forum is of a considered view that the act of the opposite parties in non-refunding of course fees to the complainant amounts to gross deficiency in service.  Under this circumstances,the complaint allowed. 

 

Opposite parties are directed to refund 2,80,612/- (By deducting Rs.1000 processing fees, Rs.6,088 Mess Charge, Rs.250/- vehicle fees, Rs.4,200/- Hostel and Utility fee from Rs.2,92,150/-)  to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of default till the realisation.  No order to compensation or cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2019.

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                         SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                      SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont....8)

-8-

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - Amal Kuriakose 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -Dr.Gopakumar V.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  The copy of documents received from the opposite parties institution

Ext.P2    -  Receipts dated 05/06/14 and 26/04/14

Ext.P3    -  The copy of Medical certificate dated 25/07/14

Ext.P4   -  The copy of letter dated16/11/15. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 -The copy of Common Application Form of opposite parties institution Ext.R2  -The copy Course Registration Form

Ext.R3 - The request letter given by the first complainant dated 05/08/14

Ext.R4 - The copy of reply sent by the second opposite party to the father of 

                the complainant dated 30/01/16

Ext.R5 -The copy of policy on retention of original certificates and 

          refund/deduction of fees of discontinued student and guidelines of AICTE Ext.R6 - The copy of attendance registration

Ext.R7 -The copy of attendance registration

Ext.R8 -The copy of final enrolment list of the MBA batch 2014-15 submitted 

                   before the University

Ext.R9 -The attendance register copy produced. 

 

 

                        Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT