COMPLAINT FILED: 02.03.2010<br /> DISPOSED ON: 19.07.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 19TH JULY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.451/2010<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Ajay Gowda M.G.<br /> S/o Sri. T.Gangaiah,<br /> Aged about 19 years,<br /> Residing at – No.318,<br /> Srirama Mandir Road,<br /> V.R.Nagar, Jayanagar,<br /> 1st Blcok,<br /> Bangalore-11.<br /> <br /> Advocte : B.J.Mahesh,<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The principal, <br /> Karnataka Reddy Jana <br /> Sangha Institute of <br /> Management Studies, <br /> 100 feet Road, 3rd Block,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-34.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Secretary,<br /> Karnataka Reddy Jana <br /> Sangha,<br /> 100 feet Road, 3rd Block,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-34.<br /> <br /> In person <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund of Rs.33,000/- being the fees paid to OP for B.B.M course with interest at 18% p.a from 09.09.2009 and compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards hardship suffered and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> Complainant having passed P.U.C with 54% of marks, procured rank number 71740 in the examination conducted by Common Entrance Test Cell. Complainant was desirous to Join engineering course as such was waiting for the list of eligible candidates to be released by the CET Cell. Complainant was unable to get the seat for engineering course in the 1st and 2nd round of list released by the C.E.T. Complainant was under apprehension that in the uncertainty of getting engineering course, he might not be able to get admission to other eligible course also. Hence he joined OP College for the course of Batchelor of Business Management by paying Rs. 33,000/- on 04.08.2009 as requisite fee under different heads. While joining the course complainant had enquired about the possibility of refund of fees in the event if complainant were to discontinue his BBM course in case if he gets a seat in engineering course in the 3rd round of list to be released by CET Cell. Complainant was informed by OP that in such an event; complainant would be paid by withholding only 20% of the amount balance 80% would be refunded to the complainant. Based on that assurance complainant paid the fees and got the admission with the OP. In the 3rd list released by CET complainant was able to secure a seat for the engineering course at Auden Technology and Management Academy during Sept. 2009 counseling. Accordingly complainant joined the said college by paying Rs.46,000/- fees under different heads. The admission order issued by Karnataka Examination Authority is produced. After joining the course in the said college, complainant approached OP-1 on 09.09.2009 for refund of fees as assured by OPs. OP-1 endorsed on the requisition on the same day and referred the same to OP-2. Copy of the requisition letter is produced. OPs failed to keep up its promise and refused to refund the amount referring some U.G.C rules. Copy of the letter issued by OP is produced. After repeated requests when OPs failed to refund the amount complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP-1 and 2 filed version denying the fact that OPs has promised to refund 80% of fee after deducting 20% of the same in case complainant was to withdraw from the course; As per U.G.C notification dt: 23.04.2007 if a student is withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee after deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded by the institution; If a student leave after joining the course if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, institution must return the fees collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fees and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable; vacancy of the seat arised due to withdrawal of the complainant was never filled up by another candidate in the waiting list; only 106 were admitted to BBM I year as against the intake of 120 in the year 2009-10; Institute lost revenue for the subsequent years; Rs.570/- being paid to Bangalore University for registration on 31.08.2009; complainant attended classes upto 8th Sept. 2009; If policy of refunding of fees is followed in the middle of academic year, many more students would follow suit and OP may face financial hardship affecting conduct of curricular activities and expenditure on staff salary etc.,; UGC note is pasted on the notice board; complainant never asked for the copy of it; OP never refused to give the same; OP is a social service organization charging minimum fees from students; OP acted legally as per UGC guidelines. Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the fees receipt, admission card, requisition letter, reply of OP. On behalf of OP-1 its principal Sri. R. Sudarshan filed his affidavit evidence and on behalf of OP-2 its Honorary General Secretary Sri. N. Rama Swamy Reddy filed his affidavit evidence and produced. UGC public notice, Admission approval, sanctioned intake of students. Then heard the arguments.<br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both affidavit and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on the above points are:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- negative<br /> Point No.2:- in negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the out set it is not in dispute that the complainant who intended to join engineering course was unable to get seat for the engineering course in the 1st and 2nd round of lists released by the C.E.T., hence under the apprehension of losing admission to other eligible course, before release of the 3rd round of list by the C.E.T complainant joined the OP college for the course of Batchelor of Business management by paying fees of Rs.33,000/-, on 04.08.2009 and attended the classes for about one month. Afterwards complainant was able to secure a seat for engineering course at Auden Technology and management Academy after 3rd round of list released by C.E.T Cell. Hence he immediately requested OP to refund the fees paid by him. These facts are not in dispute. On the repeated requests OP refused to refund on the ground vacancy of the seat arised due to withdrawal of the complainant was never filed up by another candidate. OP’s have sworn to this fact in their affidavit evidence. Complainant attended classes upto 8th Sept. 2009. OP has produced documents in support of this fact. Further it is contented by the OP that in the middle of the academic year if fees is refunded it will become a policy resulting in financial hardship to OP. There is some force in the say of the OP. It is contended by the complainant that OP has promised that in case of complainant gets the seat for engineering course OP will refund 80% of the amount by withholding 20% of the fee paid. Based on that assurance only complainant took admission for B.B.M Course with OP. Complainant failed to produce any documents in support of this contention, hence same cannot be accepted. Further OP has denied this fact in the version. <br /> <br /> 8. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that OP illegally retained Rs.33,000/- though it promised to return the same at the time of admission to BBM course but OP failed to keep up its promise. As against this it is contended by the OP that as per the UGC norms OP has got a right to deduct Rs.1000/- out of the fees paid if the student discontinue the course in the middle of the term that too subject to filling up of the vacancy arisen due to sudden withdrawal by the student like complainant. Here in this case there is no proof that the seat which fell vacant due to discontinuation by the complainant for the said academic year is filled up. When that is so in our considered view complainant is not entitled for refund of the fees.<br /> 9. In the similar circumstances in Appeal No.64/1997 reported in III (2000) CPJ 457 Chakradhan semwal V/s. Navjot Singh waraich and Anr. Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Complainant based on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Chandigarh V/s. Gunita Virk reported in I 1996 (CPJ) 37 NC.<br /> <br /> Where in National Commission held:<br /> <br /> “We do not think it necessary to go into the question whether the rule in the prospectus about the non-refund of fees is unconscionable or not in detail. Forum has no jurisdiction to declare any rule of any Institution as unconscionable or illegal it is for the Civil Court to determine this point. If student apply for admission and deposit the fees and later on do not want to join the course, then the seat so vacated will remain vacant throughout academic year. In such circumstances it will become very difficult for any institution to run in a proper manner”.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the above observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission in similar circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant withdrawn from the OP institute of his own and cannot allege deficiency in service against OP’s. There is no merits in the complaint, complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant not entitled for the reliefs claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of July 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> gm <br /> <br />