CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No.102/09 Saturday, the 30thday of October, 2010 Petitioner : Sumy Suran, Maruthaniyil, Poonjar Thekkekara. (Adv. P.G. Girija) Vs. Opposite party : 1) The Managing Trustee, Rethinavel Subramaniam College of Art & Science(Autonomous) Trichy Road, Sulur, Coimbatore-641402. 2) The Principal, Rethinavel Subramaniam College of Aret& Science(Autonomous) Trichy Road, Sulur, Coimbatore-641402 (Adv. Alex George) ORDER Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant applied for getting admission for M.Sc course during the period 2005 in the opposite parties college. The opposite party had an office at Sasthri Road, Kottayam. An agent of the 1st opposite party named Joy canvassed to me and made all the arrangements for the admission to M.Sc course. I paid the fee to the 1st opposite party and the said agent arranged a bus and took myself and other students who got admission to the said college. On 12th July 2005 petitioner got admission in the course and remitted an amount of Rs.4000/- towards tuition fee and got receipt No.30277 dated 12/7/2005. The petitioner also remitted Rs.1000/- towards admission fee and Rs.1000/- towards tuition fee, Rs.10,000/- towards tuition fee, Rs.2356/- towards lab and study. Altogether petitioner remitted total amount of Rs.18,350/- on various heads. The petitioner also remitted Rs.7150/- towards admission fee and establishment fee. The petitioner applied for the course lured by the advertisement and the influence of brochure issued by the opposite parties. The college run by the opposite parties is with poor facility and the college hostel is in a very bad hygienic atmosphere and conditions. These circumstances necessitated and constrained the petitioner to relieve from the college and hostel just after few days of admission. The brochure issued by the opposite parties is only to canvass the students without providing necessary infrastructure and therefore it is an unfair trade practice. After relieving from the college the petitioner demanded repayment of the amount paid by her on several times. On 23rd January 2006 the petitioner issued an advocate’s notice demanding the repayment. They agreed to repay it on the last of December 2007. But the opposite parties had not refunded the fees till this moment. Due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties the petitioner relieved from the course and she suffered a lot of monetary loss and mental agony. Hence the petitioner filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs.25,500/- with 12% interest and compensation Rs. 5000/-. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. 1) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 2) This petition does not show any pleading attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner is also barred by limitation and lack of jurisdiction. 3) The opposite parties never had any office at Sasthri Road Kottayam as alleged in the complaint. The opposite parties have no connection with any agent or intermediary as alleged in the complaint. 4) The opposite parties’ college and college hostel are in good hygienic conditions and a number of students are learning and residing there. The petitioner obtained admission in some other institution and failed to continue the studies. 5) The allegation that the brochure of the opposite parties’ is only to canvass the students without providing necessary infrastructure is absolute falsehood. 6) The petitioner did not demand for the repayment of the amounts remitted and she has only sent lawyers’ notice demanding the payment of the Rs.25,500/-.The opposite parties caused a reply notice directing the petitioner to approach the opposite parties with original receipt for the eligible refund amount. The petitioner has left the college at her own accord for her own personal reasons and she opted to leave the college not because of any reasons stated in the complaint. 7) The allegation that the opposite parties orally agreed to repay the amount during 2007 is absolute falsehood. The petitioner did not approach the opposite parties with original receipt to enable the respondents to evaluate whether she is eligible for any refund. 8) There is no deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice or any other reason attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It is the opposite parties’ who have suffered damage due to the act of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs sought for in the petition. Hence the opposite parties’ prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost to the opposite parties. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Exts A1 to A9. Point No.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined for M.Sc (Food and Nutrition) course on 12/7/2005 in the opposite parties college at Coimbatore and remitted the required fees in the college. There is no dispute about the total fees amount remitted by the complainant and about the fact that the remitted fees were not refunded. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner withdrew from the college without attending a single class. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant left the college due to the poor facility provided by the said college and due to the very bad hygienic atmosphere and condition of the hostel. Where as the learned counsel for the opposite parties contented that the opposite parties college and college hostel are in good hygienic atmosphere and condition in which a number of students are learning, residing and utilizing the facilities. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further contented that the petitioner left the institution on her own will and has not approached the opposite party college for any refund of fees as per the rules and regulations of the 2nd opposite party institution. The petitioner submitted that she issued advocate’s notice dated 23/1/06 demanding the refund of fees. The petitioner further submitted that even though 1st opposite party assured refund of the fees so far no amount was refunded to the complainant. There is nothing placed on record to prove that the opposite party institution suffered any loss due to the petitioner’s withdrawal from the course. It is not proved that the seat remained vacant through out the course putting the college to loss. The University Grant Commission(UGC ) has issued a public notice which is referred by the National Commission in Nipun Nagar Vs. Sim biosis Institute of International Business reported in 2009 CTJ 24(IP) = I1 (2009) CPJ 3(NC), where in emphasis was made that institutions are not entitled to retain the entire fees and if at all they can deduct some amount that is not more than Rs.1000/- and the balance should be refunded. In this case, it seems that student had left the institution within a short period and it is not proved that the said withdrawal caused any kind of loss to the institution. Considering this fact as well as giving effect to the guidelines given by UGC, we find that the act of opposite parties in not refunding the fees is unfair and unjust. In our view the opposite parties ought to have returned the fees at the time of withdrawal itself. So we hold the opposite parties unfair in their acts and deficient in their service. Point no. 1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 Admittedly the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.25,500/- to the opposite party and since the student left the institution immediately, the opposite party is not entitled to retain the entire fees. In view of the findings in point No.1, the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party will refund the fees of Rs.25,500/- after deducting Rs.1000/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 3000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2010 Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix Document of the petitioner Ext.A1-Visiting card Ext.A2-Original receipt dtd 12/7/05 for Rs. 4,000/- Ext.A3-Original receipt dtd 12/7/05 for Rs.1000/- Ext.A4-Original receipt dtd 19/7/05 for Rs.1000/- Ext.A5-Original receipt dtd 18/7/05 for Rs.10,000/- Ext.A6-Original receipt dtd 19/7/05 for Rs.2350/- Ext.A7-Originalreceipt dtd 19/7/05 for Rs.6500/- Ext.A7(a).Original receipt dtd 19/7/05 for Rs.100/- Ext.A7(b)-Original receipt dtd 19/7/05 for Rs.550/- Ext.A8-Copy of Admission brochure Ext.A9-Letter dtd 1/2/06 issued by OP to the petitioner Documents of opposite party Nil By Order, Senior Superintendent. S/4cs
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
