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. 307/2008

Dated : 30.01.2010

Complainant:

Divya Mohan, D/o Mohanan Nair, Aiswarya, Mullakkeri, Panmana P.O, Vadakkumthala Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam.

(By adv. P. Basanth)

Opposite parties:

1. The Director, Centre for Career Development Studies, GPO Lane, Pulimoodu, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Paraniyam Devakumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader)

This O.P having been heard on 30.12.2009, the Forum on 30.01.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the petitioner is a science graduate and thereafter she passed Hindi Vidwan and B. Ed course and was trying for employment as a teacher. Whileso the petitioner came to know about the coaching facility given by the opposite parties for candidates appearing for civil service preliminary examination and the complainant personally went there and enquired about the faculty, duration and the fees demanded by the opposite parties for the said coaching. The complainant specifically informed the opposite parties that she is also looking for a job of a teacher and that if the said job is obtained she will have to stop her studies and in the event of her discontinuing the course she should be given the balance fees or in the alternative the complainant should be given a facility of paying monthly fees. The opposite parties agreed the said condition and instead of monthly fees complainant was directed to pay an yearly fees of Rs. 17,400/- and the complainant remitted the same vide receipt dated 17.06.2006 numbered 1313 on the condition that in the event of her being employed in the meanwhile the complainant will be entitled to the fees after deducting it from the monthly fees. The complainant on the very first week of joining the course got employed in a local school at Karunagappally and therefore could not continue the course and the above said matter was rightly informed to the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that he will make arrangements to return the full fees paid by the complainant, since the complainant did not attend even a single day of instructions. Subsequently that since there was no follow up by the 1^st opposite party the complainant gave an application to the 2^nd opposite party, the District Collector. Vide the letter dated 03.07.2006 from the 2^nd opposite party the complainant was informed that the grievance of the complainant will be mitigated by the public grievance cell. So far no further actions were taken by the opposite parties pursuant the above said order and the complainant has been waiting all this time for a favourable response and in the above said circumstance the complainant has no other option than approaching this Forum.

The 1^st opposite party in this case filed version for himself and for and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party also. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had paid Rs. 17,400/- for the course. There is no system of monthly fees. The total fee for the course is collected once at the time of admission. They contended that the allegation made by the complainant that the opposite parties have neither agreed nor made any condition for the repayment of the tuition fee in the event of petitioner getting employment. There is no condition of refund of tuition fee. It is clearly mentioned in the admission form that “fee paid for a particular course is neither adjusted for any subsequent course nor refunded under any circumstances”, this condition is read, understood and signed by the petitioner at the time of joining the course. In the version the opposite parties further stated that the petitioner has not made any request to the 1^st opposite party regarding the refund of tuition fee. She made a request before the 2^nd opposite party and in turn he intimated the 1^st opposite party about the matter. As per the standing order of the General Body if a student is forced to discontinue the course due to inability of the institute to offer such course only, repayment be made with the permission of Chairman in each case. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the case.

In this case the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant filed proof affidavit and examined her as PW1. From the complainant’s side Exts. P1 to P3 series were marked. The 1^st opposite party also filed affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of 2^nd opposite party and was examined as DW1, through him Exts. D1 and D2 were marked.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

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

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has joined the Civil Services Examination course conducted by the opposite parties and for that course she had paid an amount of Rs. 17,400/-. The complainant alleges that at the time of remitting the annual fee the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that fee is to be paid in lump and in the event of discontinuing the course the proportionate fee will be refunded. As anticipated by the petitioner she immediately got an employment in a local school at Karunagappally. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties and requested for the refund of the fees, but the opposite parties are not willing to refund the amount. The main contentions raised by the opposite parties are that the fees paid for a particular course is neither adjusted for any subsequent course nor refunded under any circumstances and they did not promise any refund. To prove the contentions of the complainant, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, i.e; her mother was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 series were marked. Ext. P1 is the copy of receipt for the payment of Rs. 17,400/- as the course fee dated 17.06.2006 in the name of the complainant issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P2 is the advertisement of the institution. Ext. P3 series are the copy of representation given to the 2^nd opposite party and its reply issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked. Ext. D1 is the copy of application form filled and signed by the complainant. Ext. D2 is the copy of request made by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party for the refund of the amount.

In this case the opposite parties admitted that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 17,400/- as course fee and also they have no objection to the contention that the complainant has not attended even a single class. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that the fees paid for a particular course is neither adjusted for any subsequent course nor refunded under any circumstances. To prove their contention they have produced Ext. D1. In Ext. D1 the same has been clearly stated. Another contention raised by the opposite party is that they did not promise any refund. These contentions of the opposite parties are found true. But in this case complainant has never obtained any service from the opposite parties though she has paid an amount of Rs. 17,400/-. The complainant has not attended even a single class because she got an employment before attending the class. She paid the course fee on 17.06.2006. Immediately after joining the course she got employment. As per Ext. D2 produced by the opposite party on 19.06.2006 she made request for the repayment of the course fee to the 2^nd opposite party. In the above said circumstances the opposite party has the ample opportunity and time to admit a new student instead of the complainant. In this case opposite parties should have refunded the amount to the complainant since she has not attended even a single class. Complainant argued that in S.M. Balasubrahmanya Sarma Vs. A Krishna Moorthi reported in 1992(1) CPR 147 (Tamil Nadu) it has been held that if the student could not continue the course he has the right to receive the proportionate amount back at the time of discontinuing the course. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of natural justice, we also follow the above decision and find that the complainant is entitled for refund of all the amount, since she has not attended even a single class. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 17,400/- with 9% annual interest from 19.06.2006 to the complainant. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount till the date of realization.

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 30^th day of January 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 307/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

PW1 - Nirmala

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of the receipt for payment of Rs. 17,400/- dated

17.06.2006.

P2 - Advertisement of the opposite party.

P3 - Copy of representation given to the 2^nd opposite party and

its reply.

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

DW1 - Chandrachoodan Nair. B

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Photocopy of application form.

D2 - Photocopy of the request made by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.

PRESIDENT

jb