Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Shinde
Opponents through Lrd Adv. Chorbele
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(31/12/2013)
The present complaint is filed by the student against Educational Institute for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a student, who took admission in the opponent institute for studying on 9/8/2010. As per the Rules of the Institute the student can cancel the admission within 7 days. If admission is cancelled within 7 days, 10 % amount is to be deducted, if admission is cancelled within 14 days 25% amount is to be deducted, if admission is cancelled within 21 days 50% amount is to be deducted and if the student cancelled the admission within 28 days, then the opponent is entitled to deduct 90% amount. After joining the course, the complainant has realized that there were no good facilities in the hostel. Hence, within 10 days from the admission i.e. on 19/8/2010, he approached the opponent and gave written submission for cancellation of the admission. The opponent did not give permission to the complainant to leave hostel and they wrongly confined him beyond 28 days. On 29/8/2010, the complainant approached opponent for refund of the money as per the terms and conditions, but no amount is refunded to him. Then he had informed this fact to the opponent by e-mail as well as by sending legal notice. He has filed the present complaint for refund of Rs.75,000/- along with interest, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for cost of the complaint.
2] The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version in which it has denied the contents of the complaint. According to the opponent as per the rules, terms and conditions between the parties, the matter should be referred to the Arbitrator. It further contended that the complainant had cancelled the admission after 28 days, hence he is not entitled for any refund of fee. It is also contended that he has stayed in the campus from 9/8/2010 to 29/8/2010, used the facilities and amenities. It is flatly denied that the complainant was confined in the institute beyond 28 days. It is also contended that out of 150 seats, only 133 seats were filled, on that count also complainant is not entitled for refund. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After considering pleadings of both the parties and scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum and hearing the arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that he has cancelled his admission within 10 days from the date of admission, as per the allegations made in the complaint? | In the negative. |
2. | Whether complainant is entitled for refund of fees? | In the negative. |
3. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
4] It is the case of the complainant that, if the admission is cancelled before 28 days, then he is entitled for refund after deducting 90% of amount. But if it is cancelled after 28 days, then the institute is not liable to pay any refund to the student. The terms and conditions between the parties are not in dispute. It is the case of the complainant that he took admission on 5/8/2010 and he had cancelled the same on 19/8/2010. It reveals from para no. 7 of the complaint that, he had approached to the authority of the opponent and made written submission about the cancellation of the admission. He has not produced office copy of the said letter, in order to substantiate his allegation. On the contrary, it is the case of the opponent that the complainant had availed facilities of hostel and classes after taking admission. He has not cancelled admission within 28 days as per the terms and conditions between the parties. Then, he is not entitled for any refund. It reveals from the record that he has produced documentary evidence i.e. receipt of Rs. 75,000/- dtd. 9/8/2010, receipt of Rs. 1000/- dtd. 5/8/2010, two letters given by the opponent dtd. 7/8/2010, office copy of notice issued by the complainant dtd. 16/9/2010 and copy of the order of District Forum, Datiya, Madhya Pradesh. If all these documents are carefully perused, it would reveal that there is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that he had cancelled the admission within 28 days. There is inconsistency in the pleadings and evidence. It has been pleaded by the complainant that, he had filed written submission to the opponent as regards cancellation of the admission, but in the notice, which was issued by Advocate on behalf of the complainant, it is referred that the complainant had informed the opponent about cancellation orally. In these circumstances, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case and he is not entitled for any compensation. In the light of the above discussion, points, findings and the reasons, this Forum pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 31/12/2013
