BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 152/2007 Filed on 13.06.2007

Dated : 15.06.2010

Complainants:

1. Anil V. Anand, 48/349, Chithira, Varammel lane, Perandur, Elamakkara, Kochi-682 026.

    

2. V. Vijayanand, 48/349, Chithira, Varammel lane, Perandur, Elamakkara, Kochi-682 026.

    

Opposite party:

The Director, Institute of Human Resources Development, Prajo'e Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 15.06.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: 1^st complainant in this case is Anil V. Anand and 2^nd complainant is his father V. Vijayanand. The 1^st complainant got rank No. 2083 in Kerala Engineering Entrance Examination 2005. On the basis of an application and admission counselling at IHRD office, Thiruvananthapuram on 20.06.2005, he has been offered admission under the management quota in electronics and communication branch in Model Engineering College, Ernakulam under the IHRD. The complainants paid Rs. 38,700/- to the opposite party on the spot towards annual tuition fee for admission to B-Tech degree course under the management quota for the year 2005-06 vide receipt No. MS Ad 758 dated 20.06.2005.

As per the admission memo dated 20.07.2005 of the opposite party, the 1^st complainant completed admission formalities on 27.07.2005. On 27.07.2005 the complainant paid Rs. 10,370/-. The 1^st complainant has been selected for admission in BITS-Pilani Goa Campus, a pioneer institute of the country under merit quota in the second week of August 2005. This is well before the date of closing of admission in Model Engineering College and other colleges in Kerala. The complainant vacated the seat offered to him in Model Engineering College and obtained the transfer certificate dated 10.08.2005. The seat vacated by the 1^st complainant might have been taken by any other candidate from the waiting list since the electronics and communication branch in Model Engineering College is a prestigious one. The college refunded Rs. 10,220/- on 31.10.2005, the miscellaneous fees paid to the college in 27.07.2005. The 1^st complainant submitted a request before the opposite party in the month of August 2005 for the refund of Rs. 38,700/- along with all original documents by registered post. The 2^nd complainant has also requested the matter before the Director, IHRD as well as before the Chairman, IHRD. The Director, IHRD has turned down to the request of the complainant vide his letter No. Fin C/1937/2007 dated 08.03.2007. The complainant submitted an appeal against this to the Hon'ble Minister of Education and Chairman, IHRD on 03.05.2007. The complainants have not so far received any favourable order or refund of the amount. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party, the Chairman, IHRD has filed version. In the version they stated that IHRD is an autonomous educational agency established by the Government of Kerala and 9 self financing engineering colleges are functioning under it. There is no budgetary support from State Government or any other agency for the functioning of these self financing colleges. The main source of income for the maintenance of the college is the fee collected from the students. In the G.O(Rt) No. 744/03/H.Edn dated 29.05.2003 it is also specifically mentioned that the candidate seeking admission to management seat in the self financing Engineering College and IHRD shall be eligible for refund of the fee only if he/she get admission in Government aided Engineering Colleges or Courses in the first round of allotment counselling by the commissioner for Entrance Examination, Kerala. In the instant case the 1^st complainant got admission in the management seat in the Model Engineering College Ernakulam, on 20.06.2005 through centralized admission process of opposite party. The 1^st complainant, later left the college on getting admission in Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. But the 1^st complainant submitted the application for refund of the tuition fee on 16.08.2005 only i.e; after nearly two months from the date of admission. The complainant's claim for refund of the tuition fee submitted at a belated stage, contrary to the conditions contained in the selection memo, cannot be accepted. Further the opposite party submits that the claim for refund of fee is based on his admission to an institution outside the ambit of the rank list of the commissioner for Entrance Examination, Kerala during 2005-06. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The 1^st complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. The opposite party cross examined the complainant. From the side of the complainant 14 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P14. Opposite party has no evidence.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service or unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The 1^st complainant Anil V. Anand has paid an amount of Rs. 38,700/- as tuition fees to the opposite party on 20.06.2005 for admission in Model Engineering College, Ernakulam. The complainant left the college even before closing the admission in the college and commencement of the course. But the opposite party has rejected the request of the complainant for refund of the tuition fee. The argument of the complainant is that he is eligible to get the amount from the opposite party. The main contention of the opposite party is that the application submitted by the complainant to get the refund of tuition fee is belated and the claim for refund of fee is based on his admission to an institution outside the ambit of the rank list of the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, Kerala, during 2005-06.

To prove the contention of the complainants, they have produced 14 documents. Ext. P1 is the copy of admission memo dated 20.07.2005. Ext. P2 is the copy of receipt of the payment of Rs. 38,700/- to the opposite party on 15.06.2005. Ext. P3 is the copy of receipt dated 27.07.2005 for the payment of Rs. 10,370/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of T.C. Ext. P5 to P8 are the copies of representation made by the complainant to various authorities for the refund of the tuition fee. Ext. P9 is the letter issued by the opposite party to the 2^nd complainant informing that he is not eligible for the refund of the amount as per rule. Ext. P10 is the copy of appeal dated 03.05.2007. Ext. P11 is the copy of report of Mathrubhumi daily dated 27.04.2007. Ext. P12 is the copy of report on the Hindu daily dated 02.05.2007 under the caption “Refund of fees to students: HRD Ministry”. Ext. P13 is the information given by the opposite party to the complainant as per the application of the complainant that the vacancies were filled up as per the list forwarded by the IHRD. From this letter we can see that the vacant seat of the 1^st complainant was filled up and a fee of Rs. 4,907/- has been received by the opposite party for that seat. Ext. P14 is the public notice advt. No. AICTE/Legal/04(01)/2007. As per this notice “In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student after deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme.”

In this case the complainant made request for refund of tuition fee before the commencement of the class and he did not attend the class even for a single day. On this ground alone the opposite party was not entitled to retain the fees as service of tuition or coaching was not provided to the complainant or availed of by him even for a single day. In this case the complainant has produced the judgement of State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A 60/2003. In that case the Hon'ble Commission's finding is that “No service provider like training institute, educational institutes/schools or coaching centres can be allowed to forfeit the fees or consideration received in advance in case the student has not availed the service or institute has not provided the service”. From the documents and evidences of the complainant we find that it is the duty of the opposite party to refund the tuition fee to the complainant, when he requested for the refund. The act of the opposite party in not refunding the amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Such an unfair trade practice is not expected from an institution like IHRD. For the foregoing discussions we allow the complaint.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 38,700/- with 9% annual interest from 20.06.2005 till the date of realization. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of June 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 152/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Anil V. Anand

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of admission memo dated 20.07.2005

P2 - Photocopy of receipt dated 20.06.2005

P3 - Photocopy of fee receipt No. 20522 dated 27.07.2005

P4 - Photocopy of Transfer Certificate dated 10.08.2005

P5 - Copy of letter dated 08.12.2005

P6 - Copy of reminder dated 16.05.2006.

P7 - Copy of letter dated 09.08.2006.

P8 - Copy of letter dated 31.12.2006.

P9 - Copy of letter issued by opposite party dated 08.03.2007.

P10 - Copy of appeal dated 03.05.2007

P11 - Copy of report of Mathrubhumi daily dated 27.04.2007

P12 - Copy of report on the Hindu daily dated 02.05.2007

P13 - Copy of the information given by the opposite party to

complainant.

P14 - Copy of the public notice advt. No.

AICTE/Legal/04(01)/2007

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT