This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 23-04-14                                in the presence of Sri M. Sravan Kumar, advocate for complainant and                                                Sri L.A. Chowdary, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.40,078/- with interest 18% p.a., from the date of complaint; Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

             The complainant on 04-07-12 joined B.Tech. (ECE) in university of the opposite party by paying admission fee of Rs.10,000/- and tuition fee of Rs.35,625/-.   The complainant at the time of counseling specifically informed the opposite party that she will go to another college if counseling basing on EAMCET is commenced.   The opposite party informed the complainant that it has no objection to refund the tuition fee.   The complainant in EAMCET counseling got seat in Narayanamma Women’s Engineering College, Hyderabad.   The complainant gave a letter to the opposite party seeking refund of tuition fee paid by her.   The opposite party did not refund the same without assigning any valid reason.   As per norms prevailing in EAMCET counseling under various universities guidelines if any candidate opts for another college the earlier college has to refund the tuition fees.   The complainant got issued notice on 26-12-12 calling the opposite party to return the tuition fee of Rs.35,625/-.   The opposite party though received notice neither gave reply nor refunded the amount.   Non refund of the tuition fee collected by the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.   

3.   The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant did not mention when she had withdrawn the seat from the opposite party’s institution.  The opposite party on 15-10-12 allotted the seat to the complainant provisionally.  After closing the admissions, if any, seat falls vacant for any reason it cannot be filled in for ensuring three years and it amount to denial of admission to another deserving candidate and also financial loss to the opposite party.   For the said reason withdrawal of the student beyond 31-07-12 is totally discouraged.  The opposite parties specifically allowed reasonable time to withdraw her seat from the opposite party.   As time advances the opposite party has to spend a lot towards student’s education and other facilities.  The complainant did not give any letter to the opposite party while taking her certificates.   As the complainant had taken her certificates there was no relationship of consumer between her and the opposite party.  The complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint.   As the complainant had voluntarily deserted the university she is not entitled to any relief much less the one claimed.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.B-1 on behalf of the complainant and opposite party were marked. 

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party?

          2.  Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service i.e., in                             not refunding the tuition fee?

          3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages and if so to                              what amount?

          4.  To what relief?

6.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1.   The complainant on 04-07-12 paid Rs.10,000/- towards admission                 fee and Rs.35,625/- towards tuition fee (Ex.B-1).

2.   The opposite party provisionally allotted seat to the complainant            on 15-10-12 (Ex.A-2).

3.  The complainant has not attended the classes in the           opposite party’s institute.

          4.  The opposite party received the notice issued by the complainant                     (Exs.A-3 and A-4).

7.   POINT No.1:-    The opposite party charged Rs.10,000/- towards admission fee from the complainant.   Irrespective of her study in opposite party’s institution the complainant is a consumer in our considered opinion.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.

8.   POINT No.2:-    The complainant in her complaint as well as in evidence affidavit did not mention when she gave a letter to the opposite party seeking refund of tuition fee.   The complainant even did not mention either in her complaint or evidence affidavit when she joined in Narayanamma’s Engineering College.   Ex.B-1 is copy of declaration of the student and parent for semester–wise payment of fee and signed by both.   On the reverse of Ex.B-1 cancellation of seat-fee refund norms were mentioned and they are extracted below for better appreciation:

          1. Admission fee is not refundable, once student is provisionally                                      admitted.

          2. After closing of admission, tuition fee is not refundable.

          3. Prior to closing of admissions and after commencement of                                 class work, tuition fees is refundable with proportionate                              deduction of monthly fee.      

9.   Since the complainant is not seeking refund of admission fee clause No.1 of Ex.B-1 as extracted supra need not be gone into.   In Clause-4 (a) of Ex.A-2 the opposite party mentioned “seat cancellation is permitted till closing of admission (31^st July, 2012)”.  The said clause had no relevance at all as the opposite party provisionally allotted seat to the complainant on 15-10-12 only. 

10. The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant did not whisper anything while obtaining her certificates.  To non suit the complainant burden is on the opposite party to establish when admissions were closed in their institution.  The opposite party returning certificates to the complainant and the closure of admissions in their institution are within its special knowledge.   It is not the case of the opposite party that they have no such information with them.   This Forum therefore draws an adverse inference against the opposite party for withholding the information from the purview of the Forum i.e., when the complainant took return of her certificates from the opposite party and when the opposite party closed admissions in their institute.   For the discussion made supra, non refunding of the tuition fee of Rs.35,625/- in our considered opinion amounted to deficiency in service and answer this point against the opposite party.        

11.  POINT No.3:-    The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- as damages towards mental agony.   The complainant by her volition provisionally joined in the institute of the opposite party even before EAMCET counseling after knowing the rules of fee refund.   The complainant nowhere mentioned when she gave letter seeking refund of tuition fees, when she obtained return of certificates from the opposite party and when she joined in Narayanamma Women’s Engineering college, Hyderabad.  For want of those essential particulars the complainant in our considered opinion is not entitled to any damages.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

12.   POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

          1. The opposite party is directed to return Rs.35,625/- (Rupees thirty                             five thousand six hundred and twenty five only) to the                                      complainant together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of                         complaint till payment.

          2.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two                           thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.

          3.  The opposite party is directed to comply the above order within six                             weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

 Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30^th day of April, 2014.

Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX                                    Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: 

                                                                                                    Sd/-XXX

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.