BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.757/2012

DATED THIS THE 8^th AUGUST 2013

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                          Ms. Anita Tiwari

                                                          C/o. Nitin Tiwari,

                                                          National Centre for

                                                          Biological Sciences,

                                                          TATA Institute of

Fundamental Research,

GKVK, Bellary Road,

Bangalore-65                

V/s

Opposite party: -          

                                                          National Institute of

                                                          Management Excellence,

                                                          Number 22, 2^nd Main,

                                                          Muthappa block,

                                                          R.T.Nagar, Bangalore

                                                          Reptd by its Director                

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to her, and to refund a sum of Rs.35,000=00 along with interest, and to pay Rs.50,000=00 towards physical strain and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000=00 towards cost of legal notice.  

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant desired to pursue two years MBA course and so she enrolled herself with the OP and she decided to join the OP’s institute as the OP institute is having enviable reputation with a good track record. However the complainant is disappointed at the appalling level of service meted out to her. The total course fee is Rs.95,000=00 and out of which  the complainant has paid Rs.60,000=00 by way of three installments of Rs.20,000=00 each plus Rs.1,000=00 for the administrative expenses. The receipt numbers are 2144, 2154, 2567 and 2700. The problem started when the complainant had bad experience dealing with the OP’s employees, and that is why she decided to withdraw her admission and get her money refunded. As initially informed by the OP’s employees, the complainant was supposed to get Rs.35,000=00 after deducting Rs.25,000=00 from the amount already paid by her. However, later the employee of OP came up with a new calculation stating that the amount to be deducted was Rs38,750=00 and the complainant would be refunded only Rs.21,250=00. But when the complainant asked for a receipt for refunding only Rs.21,250=00, the OP has refused to issued any such receipts. The complainant would like to take this opportunity to ask the OP as to why did it deny issuing the receipt for the amount of Rs.21,250=00. According to the OP, as per the new calculations Rs.20,000=00 is the retention fee which is not refundable. However, the complainant would like to throw light on the fact that, nowhere it is mentioned in any documents given to the complainant at the time of taking admission and also the complainant requested the OP to provide the complainant with her PTU registration number and other details in order to appear for exam, but the OP did not provide the same and so, the complainant missed appearing for her semester because of the irresponsible and negligent behaviour of the OP. The complainant is unhappy with the service meted out to her and feels infuriated by the fact that the OP is twisting its own terms and conditions and is going back on its words. When the complainant questioned the OP about the original commitment of refunding Rs.35,000=00 they straight away refused to refund the same. However to the complainant’s good wits, she was vigilant and has recorded the conversation at the time of OP’s employees promised her to refund Rs.35,000=00 in case of cancellation. The complainant can produce the same to the forum as proof. Hence the present complaint is filed.

          3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:

          The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant has miserably failed to show the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In fact, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP since they have conducted the MBA course classes regularly as per Punjab Technical University and they have also issued PTU registration number and other requisite details to the complainant in order to take up semester examination. However, despite providing aforesaid PTU registration and other details, the complainant did not choose to write the exam. Hence filing of this complaint against the OP is totally bereft of merits. The complainant is not even a consumer and does not satisfy the said definition under the CP Act. The OP institute is one of the reputed management institutions in Bangalore city, the OP offers various management courses in almost all the streams. The OP institute admits only 80 students per academic year, any student approaches after admitting 80 students will be declined admission. The complainant has enrolled with the OP institute for the purpose of pursuing MBA course during the academic year 2011, the said course is two year course and total fee payable for the said course is Rs.95,000=00. Accordingly the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.60,000=00 non refundable amount towards the part payment on different dates and agreed to pay the remaining fee as per fee structure provided by the OP. Course fee paid by the students would be utilized for educational purpose without any profit. Since the complainant has discontinued the course during Jan.2012, the OP institute has sustained loss of Rs.35,000=00 and so the OP institute reserves its right to take appropriate legal action against the complainant to recover the loss before the appropriate forum. Any order for refund would cause irreparable harm and loss to the OP. The OP institute is started in the year 2009 and so far there is no complaint whatsoever from any students with regard to the standards, teaching, facilities, faculty, administrative staff etc. so the averments of the complaint that the complainant is disappointed at the appalling level of service meted out to her is denied as false. The fee paid by the complainant is utilized towards tuition fee and workshop etc. The course fee paid is non refundable and the said aspect was intimated to the complainant at the time admission, so the question of refunding any amount does not arise. Moreover no such commitment was made by any of the employee of OP. Despite providing PTU registration number and all other required details, the complainant did not choose to write the semester exam. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                           Whether the complainant proves that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount to her as prayed in the complaint?

2.                           If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                           What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Affirmative  

Point no.2:  The complainant is entitled to refund

Rs.35,000=00 within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 7% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order, to till the date of realization and cost of Rs.1,000=00.

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and produced documents as annexure-1 to 13 and copies of two more documents. On the other hand, one Shashidhar Chiron who being the Director of the OP has filed his affidavit and produced documents as annexure-R1 to R6. We have heard the arguments of both parties, and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides meticulously. 

7. One Anita Tiwari who being the complainant has stated in her affidavit that, she desired to pursue MBA course and so she enrolled herself with the OP institute. The total course fee is Rs.95,000=00 out of which she has paid Rs.60,000=00 by way of three installments of Rs.20,000=00 each plus Rs.1,000=00 for the administrative expenses. The receipt numbers are 2144, 2154, 2567 and 2700. The problem started when she had bad experience dealing with the employees of OP, so she decided to withdraw her admission and get her money refunded. As initially informed by the OP’s employees, she was supposed to get Rs.35,000=00 after deducting Rs.25,000=00 from the amount already paid by her. However, later the OP’s employee came up with a new calculation stating that the amount to be deducted was Rs38,750=00 and she would be refunded only Rs.21,250=00, but she asked for a receipt for refunding only Rs.21,250=00, the OP blatantly refused to issue any such receipts. She is unhappy with the service meted out to her and feels infuriated by the fact that the OP is twisting its own terms and conditions and is going back on its words. When she questioned the employees of OP about the original commitment of refunding Rs.35,000=00 they straight away refused to have committed anything like this to her. However to her good wits, she was vigilant and recorded the conversation at the time of OP’s employees promised her to refund Rs.35,000=00 in case of cancellation. The OP adopts unfair trade practice of forcing the students to pay the course fee of 24 months course in the initial six months of commencement of the classes. There is no mention of any non refundable amount in any of the admission documents signed by the OP. The OP institute adopts unfair and non professional behaviour by submitting that the fee paid by her is non-refundable, the OP institute has harassed her mentally. The OP delayed the commencement of the classes by four months from its committed date. The OP conducted classes only 75% of time and the rest 25% of the time classes were not scheduled without giving any reason, when she asked the OP for the same, she was intimated that the OP does not owe any explanation, further it is shown that the OP has been deficient in providing the expected service to its admitted students. So the present complaint is filed, so order be passed as prayed in the complaint.

8. The complainant has produced four copies of receipts issued by the OP dated 2-4-2011, 16-4-2011, 31-10-2011 and 15-12-2011 in the name of complainant for having received Rs.1,000=00, Rs.20,000=00, Rs.20,000=00 and Rs.20,000=00 and out of it Rs.20,000=00 is shown as retention fee and Rs.1,000=00 is towards application fee and Rs.40,000=00 towards course fee. Annexure-2 of the complainant is email letter copy of complainant addressed to the OP dated 1-3-2012 requesting to provide her PTU registration number as she needs it to sit for the first semester exam to be held in March-2012, and also know the amount that will be refunded to her and also breakup of the amount that will be deducted. Annexure-3 is the copy of application down load of OP stating that, the admissions are opened for academic year 2012. Annexuer-4 is admission letter of OP dated 14-4-2011 addressed to the complainant informing that the complainant has been admitted to two years executive MBA program at OP institute and program fee was Rs.95,000=00. Anneuxre-5 is semester details of Punjab Technical University. Annexure-6 is copy of print-close window showing the fee breakup for exam of MBA classes for the year 2013. Annexure-7 is email letter of OP addressed to the complainant expressing congratulations and greetings for having admitted to executive MBA program; the complainant has produced copy of application of one Sheeraz Ahmed Khan Ghouri addressed to the forum stating that,  he was refunded a total sum of Rs.40,000=00 by the OP of which Rs.20,000=00 was refunded on 18-12-2011 in the form of cash and Rs.20,000=00 in the forum of cheque on 14-3-2012 and the remaining Rs.20,000=00 of the amount paid Rs.60,000=00 was held by the OP without explanation. Annexure-8 is the copy of code of conduct of the OP and under this code of conduct, OP institution instructs the students to adhere to code of conduct in order to facilitate a mutually conductive environment. Annexure-9 is the copy of admission letter of OP dated 18-6-2011 addressed to Sheeraz Ahmed Khan Gori intimating admission to executive MBA course for two years. Annexure-10 is the copy of DD drawn in the name of OP by one Sheeraj Ahmed Khan Ghori dated 25-6-2011 for Rs.20,000=00. Annexure -11 is the copy of receipt for having received the said DD from Sheeraz Ghori. Annexure-12 is the copy of email of disciplinary committee and ombudsman of the OP informing for expulsion of three students by name Jithin Abraham, Sheeraz Ghori and Arun David from MBA classes for serious violation of the code of conduct and untoward behaviour towards OP staff. Annexure-13 is the copy of bank statement of Sheeraz Ahmed Khan Ghori. The complainant has produced one copy of letter of UGC dated 22-6-2011 addressed to the Vice Chancellor/Director of all the institutions deemed to be universities on the subject of retention of certificates and refund of fees in case student leaves after joining the course, wherein it is stated clearly that, the entire fee collected from the students after deduction of the processing fee not more than Rs.1,000=00 shall be refunded by the institution.

9. At this stage, it is relevant to have a cursory glance at the material evidence of the OP. One Shashidhar Chiron who being the Director of OP has stated in his affidavit that, at the time of admission itself it was informed to the complainant that course fee paid is non refundable and the said aspect is clearly mentioned in the fee receipts issued by them. Their institute has conducted the classes of 1^st semester MBA course as per the schedule and the complainant has attended the most of the classes and their institution has also paid requisite course fee of Rs.11,200=00 payable to the Punjab Technical University vide DD dated 4-11-2012 drawn on IDIB bank, Bangalore and their institution has also issued PTU registration number and other requisite details to the complainant in order to take up semester examination, but the complainant did not choose to write the exam. All these things clearly establish the fact that there is no deficiency in providing service on the part of our institution, so the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not produced any iota of truth to show the bad experience meted out to her by the employee of the OP. The tape recorded conversation is not related to their institution and their employees have not promised any refund of course fee. The averments that their institution has refunded course fee of Rs.40,000=00 to one Shiraz Ghori is hereby denied as false. Since the complainant has discontinued the course without paying the full course fee, their institution has sustained loss of Rs.35,000=00 and so they reserve their right to take appropriate legal course of action against the complainant to recover the loss. Any order for refund would cause irreparable harm and loss to the OP, so the complaint be dismissed with cost.

10. The OP has produced three copies of receipts issued in the name of complainant for having received Rs.60,000=00 in total and out of the said amount Rs.20,000=00 is taken as retention fee and remaining Rs.20,000=00 has been taken as course fee and on the left side potion of the receipt, it is mentioned that the fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstance. The OP has produced copy of course module: PPM and report of EMBA dated 17-9-2011 wherein before the name of complainant it is marked as present. The copy of attendance registered is produced and that document shows that the complainant has attended the sessions of MBA course from Sept. 2011 to Jan.2012. The copy of DD of IDBI bank is produced, but that DD copy is not clearly visible. Next document is the copy of Punjab Technical University application of complainant. Last document of the OP is copy of notice of the complainant addressed to the OP.

11. Taking the documents of the complainant and OP especially the copy of receipts issued by the OP in the name of complainant, it is made to understand that in two copies of receipts produced by the complainant, there is no clause printed to the effect that, once fee paid will not be refunded under any circumstances as we found in the copy of receipts produced by the OP. The copy of receipts produced by the complainant and OP are varying on this material aspects, for the reasons best known the OP. Even if it is taken the OP printed clause in the receipts that fee once paid will not be refunded, it is sufficient enough to hold that the OP is not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. It is an admitted fact between the parties that, the complainant after getting admission to executive MBA course by paying Rs.60,000=00 has attended the classes from Sept.2011 to Jan.2012 only, but she did not attend the entire two years course. The complainant has stopped attending the classes from Feb.2012 and did not attend the semester exam for the reasons best known to her. When the complainant did not attend the entire two years course, the OP is not entitled to retain the amount of complainant for any reasons. Since the OP has not given full service to the complainant i.e. two years, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.35,000=00 out of Rs.60,000=00 and remaining Rs.25,000=00 has not been claimed by the complainant as that amount was collected as retention fee. In view of not rendering the full service to the complainant i.e. for two years, the OP is not justifiable to reject the claim of the complainant under the guise of non refundable clause printed in the receipt. Moreover as per the copies of circular and notice of the UGC, it is clear that, if students discontinue the course after paying the fee the students are entitled for refund by deducting Rs.1,000=00 maximum, and accordingly the institution have been directed by the UGC to refund the amount to the students by deducting Rs.1,000=00 maximum. So making careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, on the back ground of circular of UGC and facts of the non continuation of MBA course by the complainant after attending four months course of MBA, we are of the view that, the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant are believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of the OP and as such, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has proved this point by placing clear cogent and consistent material evidence that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on their part in not refunding the amount as prayed in the complaint, and accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative.       

          12. In view of our affirmative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.35,000=00 from the OP as the complainant has not availed full service of the OP. As per the material evidence of the complainant, it is no doubt true that, the complainant has paid in all Rs.60,000=00 and out of it, she is claiming Rs.35,000=00 and not the entire amount of Rs.60,000=00. In fact, the complainant has not claimed the balance amount of Rs.25,000=00 as the said amount was collected by the OP as retention fee, so the OP is directed to refund Rs.35,000=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith with 7% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.1,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation, and accordingly, we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.35,000=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 7% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this order, to till the date of realization.

          The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 8^th day of August 2013).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT