BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad,B.A.,LL.B. , President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 11th day of July,2008
C.C.No. 135/07
Between:
N. Bala Krishna Murthy, S/o. N. Sunkaiah Setty,
Resident of 301, Upstairs, Osmania College Road, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
52, Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad.
- ICFAI University,
H.N.40/447/25, 1st Floor, Opp. S.T.B.C.College, R.S.Road, Kurnool.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. D. Y. Rama Murthy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.C. Joga Rao, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.135/07
1. This consumer complaint is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to cancel the enrollment of his son Sri.Krishna Chakravarthy for A.C.F.A. course offered by opposite parties and to return Rs.10,000/- collected by opposite parties towards initial payment with 18% p.a from 4-10-2004 till realization, Rs.20,000/- towards damages, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant’s son Krishna Chakravarthy enrolled into M.S.(finance) programme in opposite party No.1 institute by paying initial amount of Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.2 which is the branch of opposite party No.1. At the time of admission and at the instance of opposite parties , the complainant issued 12 post dated cheques towards course fee of his son and the said cheques were handed over to opposite party No.2. Later on the opposite parties did not conduct any classes and the complainant son also did not evince any interest in pursuing the course , thereafter the complainant sent a letter dated 18-11-2004 by register post to the opposite party requesting to cancel the enrollment of his son and also to return the post dated cheques issued by him without presenting them into the bank for realization. The complainant clearly notified in the said letter that he is intimating his bank for stop payment. The opposite parties concealed the representation made by the complainant with an intimation to extract money and with threat of litigation has presented cheques in the bank and which were dishonored by the complainant’s bank for the reason to stop payment by the drawer. The opposite party on 3-1-2005 and 31-1-2005 got issued notices demanding for payment of dishonored cheque amount and bank charges Rs.150/-. The complainant thereafter got issued suitable replies dated 21-1-2005 and 23-2-2005 requesting the opposite party No.1 to cancel his son enrollment and return post dated cheques issued by him. To the dismay of the complainant on 14-3-2007 the complainant received a letter from opposite party for payment of entire installments of Rs.40,200/-The complainant issued suitable reply dated 2-4-2007 calling upon the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest and to desist the idea of initiating any legal action. This attitude of opposite party is the best example of deficiency of service to the complainant who wants to discontinue the course offered by opposite party at the initial stage itself. Because of the above strange harassment of the opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony which quantifies to Rs.20,000/-.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) receipt dated 4-10-2004 as to the payment of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant, (2) registered letter , dated 12-11-2004 of complainant to opposite party, (3)postal acknowledgement of R.L.No.653, dated 19-11-2004, (4) letter of opposite party, dated 3-1-2005 to complainant along with remittance form, (5) office copy of reply letter, dated 21-1-2005 by the complainant’s counsel to Ex.A4, (6) letter, dated 31-1-2005 of opposite party to the complainant along with remittance form, (7) reply, dated 23-2-2005 of complainant’s counsel to opposite party (8) letter, dated 14-3-2007 of opposite party to the complainant, (9) reply letter, dated 2-4-2007 to Ex.A8, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A9 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel. The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable and there is no cause of action for the complainant to institute this complaint, but admits the complainants son got himself registered with opposite parties for pursuing M.S.(finance) distance learning programme and subsequently issued with enrollment No.C.F.A 033899 and as per the schedule paid installment amount of Rs.10,000/- towards course programme and for balance amount availed installment facilities by issuing 12 post dated cheques of Rs.3,350/- each and submits that conducting of training classes is only optional as this programme is offerred under distance learning mode and in cities where ICFAI branches are located and subject to registration of many number of students at each branch and the student have to pay additional sum of Rs.9,000/- which is refundable if training classes are not conducted and the complainant’s son has not opted for training classes . This programme is comprehensive study package specially designed for self study. As per the admission polices and the prospectus of the said programme wherein, it is specified that the fees once paid is not refundable under any circumstances except in case of rejected application. The fee schedule in the prospectus clearly states that post dated cheques are honoured when presented for realization and there is contractual obligations on part of the complainant to honor the post dated cheques issued towards payment of course fee. Hence, there is absolutely no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties for making them liable for any relief and there is no violation of provisions of C.P.Act 1986 and the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed. And lastly submits that as per the terms and the prospectus for entertaining any complaint of the complainant, it shall fall within the jurisdiction of courts at Hyderabad only and lastly seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) notarized Xerox copy of application for admission and (2) notarized Xerox copy of prospectus of M.S.(finance) , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complaint is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
8. It is the simple case of the complainant that his son Krishna Chakravarthy joined in opposite parties university for M.S.finance programme by submitting an application vide Ex.B1 and paid initial amount of Rs.10,000/- vide Ex.A1 & for remaining course fee availed installment facility and submitted 12 post dated cheques for Rs.3,350/- each and thereafter as the complainant’s son did not show any interest to continue the MS(finance) programme, had written a letter dated 12-11-2004 vide Ex .A2 to the opposite party No.1 requesting to cancel the enrolment and to return the cheques without presenting to their bankers . But inspite of said request the opposite parties did neither canceled the enrollment of the complainant’s son nor returned the cheques and balance fee amount payable after deducting cancellation charges. While such is so with the complainant, the opposite parties submits that their’s a reputed institution and the complainant voluntarily joined the institution and he was supplied with valuable study material and as he voluntarily left the MS (finance) programme, he is not entitled for refund of fee once paid as per their prospectus and admission policies .
9. The other plea of the complainant is that , the opposite parties did not conduct training classes , but the opposite parties in their written version submitted that as per Ex.B2 prospectus conducting training classes is optional, subject to minimum number of students at each branch and for attending training classes additional fee of Rs.9,000/- is collected, which is refundable if training classes are not conducted and the complainant’s son did not availed the said benefit by paying any amount towards said classes. Hence, the plea of the complainant remained as plea for plea sake without any substantiating material.
10. The counsel for opposite parties strongly contended that as per the Ex.B2 prospectus of M.S finance at Pg . No.28 and at para 9 it has been specified that students will have no claim for refund of other fees. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of any fee paid as he voluntarily withdrew from the said course and also relied on the decision of our State Commission between K. Siva Prasad Vs Correspondent Smt.
Y. Krishnaveni Rao reported in I 2004 CPJ Pg.20 where in, it was held that when the complainant withdrew from the college voluntarily, fee cannot be refunded and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties college and also relied on the other decision of National Commission between Sri. Ram deo Baba Engineering College Vs. Sushrant Yuvaraj Rode reported in III 1994 CPJ Pg 160, wherein, it was held by the National Commission that once the complainant withdraws from the college voluntarily, it cannot be said that there is deficiency of service on part of the college in non refund of admission fee.
11. In the present case the complainant’s son withdrew from the said course voluntarily and no where in the correspondence stated that training classes are not conducted, at the earliest stage
i.e. in Ex.A2 the complainant no where stated that training classes are not conducted, in EX.A2 the complainant’s only requests for cancellation of his sons enrollment and request for refund of initial payment fee and return of cheques. Hence from the above it is clear that the complainant’s son voluntarily withdrew from the said course i.e. M.S.finance. The Law laid down in the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the present and is applicable to the facts of the present case and relying on the above decisions , it cannot be said that opposite parties are at deficiency of service in not returning the fee to the complainant and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of merit and force, as he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the complaint.
13. In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11th day of July, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Receipt, dated 4-10-2004 as to payment of Rs.10,000/-
by the complainant.
Ex.A2. Registered letter, dated 12-11-2004 of complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A3. Postal acknowledgement of R.L.No.653, dated 19-11-2004.
Ex.A4. Letter of opposite party, dated 3-1-2005 to complaint along with
Remittance form.
Ex.A5. Office copy of reply letter, dated 21-1-2005 by the complainant’s
counsel to Ex.A4.
Ex.A6. Letter, dated 31-1-2005 of opposite party to the complainant along
With remittance form.
Ex.A7. Reply, dated 23-2-2005 of complainants counsel to opposite party.
Ex.A8. Letter, dated 14-3-2007 of opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A9. Reply letter, dated 2-4-2007 its reply to Ex.A8.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Notarized Xerox copy of application for admission.
Ex.B2. Notarized Xerox of MS (finance)
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was posted on :
