BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 7^th of July 2011

PRESENT

        SRI.RAVISHANKAR           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.296/2010

(Admitted on 30.10.2010)

Mr.B.M. Usman,

So. Moideen Kunhi Mukri,

Mukri House, Kaikamba,

Uppala Post  671 322.

Kasaragod Taluk.                              …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.M.Abdul Khader).

          VERSUS

1. The Managing Trustee,

Shubhodaya Trust,

Lady Hill, Mangalore.

2. Sri.Padmanabha B,

The Principal,

Adarsh College, Lady Hill,

Mangalore – 575 003.

Dakshina Kannada District.                 ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.K.Nikesh Shetty).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SRI.RAVISHANKAR:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant sought admission to his son to the 1^st year BBM course in Opposite Party No.2 College during June 2008 and paid Rs.200/- on 16.06.2008 and thereafter paid Rs.8,000/- towards provisional admission.  His son has passed qualifying exams and provisional admission was given to BBM Degree Course subject to approval by the Mangalore University.  At the time of admission his son submitted necessary application since there was a typographical error in recording the name of the son of the Complainant.  The office of the Opposite Party has instructed the Complainant to rectify the mistake and to submit the required certificate immediately for approval of the Mangalore University.  The Complainant took steps to get the mistake corrected and took further more time to provide the required certificate.  Meantime, the provisional admission given to the Complainant’s son was cancelled.  Since the Opposite Party cancelled the admission the Complainant constrained to get admission to the B.Com Degree Course at Kasaragod for which he approached the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs.8,000/- but the Opposite Party had not paid the amount for which he has issued a legal notice inspite of that Opposite Party failed to refund the said amount.  Hence alleges deficiency of service and prays for refund of the said Rs.8,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.8,000/- towards deficiency of service.

2.       After service of notice Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that Complainant’s son Mr.Mohammad Fayiz who had completed his plus two in Kerala State applied for admission to BBM course at Opposite Party College on 18.06.2008. Upon scrutiny of the said application, his son had not submitted the eligibility certificate and migration certificate to the Opposite Party at the time of admission.  As per the prevailing guidelines of Mangalore University non-submission of eligibility certificate and migration certificate will deprive their admission of their candidate to BBM Course.  Anyhow, in the interest of candidate the Opposite Party had accepted the admission of the Complainant’s son for the year 2008-09 subject to condition of production of migration and eligibility certificate.  At the time of admission his son paid Rs.8,000/- towards the course fee for the 1^st year BBM Course and he was provisionally admitted to the said course.  His son attended the classes for the month of June and July 2008 and later failed to produce the above said certificates.  Thereafter his son left the course without intimation and remained absent throughout.  After lapse of one year and seven months, Complainant wrote a letter dated 01.01.2010 demanding for repayment of the amount paid towards the provisional admission.  The said demand made by the Complainant was rejected through their letter dated 02.02.2010 stating that there was no provision to refund the fee paid.  Opposite Party further contended that due to admission given to the Complainant’s son Opposite Party deprived their right to admit any other suitable candidates in his place after leaving the institution without intimation.  Hence there is no deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.    

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.B.M.Usman (CW1) filed affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.   The Complainant produced 5 (five) documents as listed in the annexure in detail.   One Sri.Jayachandra Kajekar (RW1), Chairman of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex R1 was marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure in detail.   The Complainant as well as Opposite Parties produced notes of arguments along with citations.

          We have considered the notes of arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the order.

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

On going through the documents produced by the Complainant and the affidavit sworn by the Complainant, it is noted that Complainant’s son has got admitted to Opposite Party No.1 College in the month of June 2008 by paying Rs.8,000/- subject to approval of the Mangalore University.  Subsequently he was intimated to produce required certificate for approval of the Mangalore University and he was unable to produce the said certificate in meantime the provisional admission given to his son was cancelled.  Thereafter he applied for refund of the amount of Rs.8,000/- from the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party refused to pay the said amount hence prays for repayment of the admission amount paid to the Opposite Party.

The affidavit sworn by the Complainant is clear that he was unable to produce the required certificate for approval of the Mangalore University and he also admits that his son got admitted to some other institution.  When the Complainant himself had not produced the required provisional certificates for approval of the Mangalore University it is on his own negligence for which the admission was cancelled.  The Opposite Party Institution has no hesitation to provide an admission if the Complainant produced the relevant documents whereas in this case the Complainant without any intimation had admitted his son to the Vivekananda College, Chegala, Kasaragod and the Complainant had not explained the reason for delay in providing the required documents to the Opposite Party institution.  He is also not disputed that his son was attended the class till July 2008.  Thereafter his son admitted to some other institution without prior intimation to the Opposite Party Institution.  Such being the case, the cancellation of the admission was caused only due to negligence on the part of the Complainant himself.  Therefore, he cannot claim for the reimbursement of the said admission amount from the Opposite Party No.1.  Apart from that nowhere Opposite Party has contended that the admission was refused to his son.  Therefore, we found there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the claim made by the Complainant is not justifiable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  As such we answer point No.(i) in negative. 

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

            The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

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

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 7^th day of July 2010.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.B.M.Usman – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Doc. No.1 – 30.08.2010: Order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod.

Doc. No.2 – 16.06.2008: Cash receipt of Shubhodaya Education Trust.

Doc. No.3 – 25.02.2010: Certificate issued by the Vivekananda Co-operative College, Kasaragod.

Doc. No.4 – 09.01.2010: Letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 along with postal receipt.

Doc. No.5 – 02.02.2010: Reply of the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 – Sri.Jayachandra Kajekar, Chairman of the Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

Ex R1 – 18.06.2008: Application for admission to course in BBM

                                 submitted by the Mohammad Fayiz M.U.

Dated:07.07.2011                            PRESIDENT