BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29TH February 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMMON ORDER IN
C.C.Nos. 29/2015, 49/2014, 245/14, 76/2013 and 264/2013
CC.No.29/2015
(Admitted on 09.01.2015)
Krishna Shastri
S/o Chidambar Shastri,
Aged about 51 years,
R/o Fort Road, Koppal,
Tq: & Dist: Koppal. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri Manju. V. Mudgal)
VERSUS
The Principal,
ALVA’s Education
Foundation (R)Moodbidri 574227,
District Dakshina Kannada. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. M.R. Ballal)
CC.No.49/2014
(Admitted on 11.02.2014)
Praveen Kumar S/.o Sharanayya Hiremath,
Aged about 17 years, Occ: Student,
Minor as a next friend natural father guardian
Sharanayya K. Hiremath
Aged about 44 years,
Occ: Teacher,
Resident of Gangawathi,
Dist: Koppal ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri Manju V. Mudgal)
VERSUS
The President,
Dr. M.Mohan Alva
Alva’s P.U. College Moodbidri,
D.K. Pin – 574227 OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. M.R. Ballal)
CC.No.245/2014
(Admitted on 07.07.2014)1)
Thejus Chandran
S/o of Chandran,
Aged about 18 years,
Residing at Geethanjali
West Nedumbram,
Post: Chokli, Tellicherry.
Kannur District Kerala State 670672. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri Thimmayya P.)
VERSUS
The Principal,
Alva’s Institute of Engineering & Technology
Mijar Moodabidri,
Mangalore Taluk D.K. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. M.R. Ballal)
CC.No.76/2013
(Admitted on 16.03.2013)
Sri D.V. L.Narasimhamurthy,
Retired Karnataka Bank Employee,
R/o “Sreenidhi”, 1st Main,
6th ‘A’ Cross, Hanumanthapura,
Tumkur and also represent
as father and natural guardian
for his minor daughter
Ms Shubhashree D.N.
aged about 16 years. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri Suraj Lal Shetty.)
VERSUS
The Administrator,
Alva’s College,
Alvas Educaton Foundation (R),
Sundari Ananda Alva Campus,
Vidyagiri,
Moodabidri, D.K.District. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. M.R. Ballal)
CC.No.264/2013
(Admitted on 28.09.2013)
V. Nagaraju
S/o Venkataramanappa,
Residing at 3rd Block,
Hanumantha Nagar,
Bethamangala,
Bangarapet
Taluk, Kolar District-563116. ….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri J. Ravindra Naik)
VERSUS
Dr. Mohan Alva, President,
Alva’s Education trust, Alva’s Pre-
University College,
Moodabidri-574227. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. M.R. Ballal)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. All the Complainants filed the above complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party institution claiming similar reliefs. In order to save the time as well as for the sake of convenience we have taken up all the cases together and passed common order as under:
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant in C.C.No.29/2015 stated that his son by name Gurudatha Shastri took admission in opposite party institution for P.U.C 1st year course on 11-05-2013. At the time of admission opposite Party collected a sum of Rs 45,400/- towards tuition fees, hostel and other fees. But, thereafter the complainant son due to till health was unable to continue his education at Opposite Party institution. Thereafter the complainant requested the Opposite Party to make refund of all received fees as mentioned above. But the opposite parties refused to refund the amount. Hence this complaint.
The Complainant in C.C.No.49/2014 stated that in order to pursue Pre-University course in science (PCMB) for the academic year 2013-14, he had approached the Opposite Party and got admission to the opposite party institute and paid Rs. 59,600/- towards total fees. It is stated that, the complainant has breathing problem and he could not adjust the climate and hence decided to quit the college and claimed refund of fees paid by him. But, the opposite parties not refunded the fees. Hence this complaint.
The Complainant in C.C.No.245/2014 stated that he had attended the examination conducted by COMEDK UGET 2013 2013 for the seat of mechanical engineer. Before selecting college personally approached the opposite party institution and he had told that opposite party is charging Rs. 1,00,000/- towards annual tuition fees. It is stated that, the complainant on 29.7.2013 submitted the allotment letter issued by COMEDK UGET 2013 along with receipt of Rs. 50,000/- to op institution. It is stated that, while submitting application form opposite party is directed the complainant to pay Rs. 75,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-, but the complainant requested opposite party that the complainant will liable to pay only Rs. 50,000/- and not more. The OP party forced the complainant that unless he will pay Rs. 75,000/- he shall not admitted the complainant to his college and refused to allot the seat. Due to refusal of seat by the OP the complainant has constrained to approach some other college and joined Rajiv Gandhi Engineer College (Kerala State) but, the OP not refunded the fees paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint.
The Complainant in C.C.No.76/2013 stated that by believing the advertisement and representation of opposite party the complainant along with his daughter named Shubashree sought admission for 1st PUC commerce (ECBA) in the esteemed institution of opposite party by making a payment of Rs. 8,850/- towards admission fee accordingly a seat was allotted to complainant’s daughter. In furtherance of the same the principal of the opposite party issued a seat allotment slip on 1.06.2012 and further asked the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9,850/- at the time of joining of opposite party college. The complainant states that he again approached the principal or opposite party with his daughter on 16.06.2012 and as per his advice complainant herein made a payment of Rs. 16,000/- towards hostel fee. The complainant stated that, the opposite party facilitated the student in Ayurveda Hospital ward there was no proper accommodation and it had as many as 15 beds and atmosphere is not good and hence the complainant daughter not willing to adjust with that atmosphere and contended that, the OP committed in deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
The Complainant in C.C.No.264/2013 stated that his son Manjunath sought admission for 1st year (PCMB) for the academic year 2013-14, paid Rs. 59,400/- towards total fees. It is stated that, the complainant son had ill-health therefore, discontinued the course and approached the Opposite Party requested to cancel the admission and claimed refund of fees paid by him. But, the opposite parties not refunded the fees. Hence this complaint.
Feeling aggrieved by the above, the above complaints are filed complaints before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay the entire money collected from the complainants respectively mentioned in their complaints and also sought for compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel filed version stated that, the complainants voluntarily withdrawn from the course offered by the Opposite Party not on account of any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint. It is stated that the opposite party institution is a private trust managing several educational institution run without any Government Aid. The major portion of the money that is collected in the form of fees are utilized for the said purpose. In view of the above facts every student as well as his parent/guardian will be informed in advance as to the non-refund of fee paid in advance as a condition precedent for admission and only on their undertaking to such stipulations provide admission to the applicant intending to pursue education in the institution. The said stipulation is made only to avoid unforeseen financial burden to the institutions and also to spend for the projects of the entire year. The refund of fee paid by every student unwilling to avail the service on account of his own private reasons not on the part of the Opposite parties deficiency or whatsoever. It is further stated that the complainants voluntarily agreed to abide by the stipulation of the institutions for the admission. Therefore, non-refund of the advance fees paid is estopped from claiming back the fees paid after voluntarily withdrawn from the college. It is also seen that similar version has been filed in all the complaints denied the deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaints.
III. 1. In support of the above complaints, all the respective Complainants are examined as CW-1 and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked under the ‘Ex.C’ series detailed in the annexure here below. Opposite Parties also examined and filed their counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked under the ‘Ex R’ series detailed in the annexure here below.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
Whether the Complainants proved that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
We have considered the notes/oral 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) to (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) to (iii):
In all the complaints it is admitted that the complainants were got admission to opposite party institution and paid the fees as stated in their respective complaints and there is no dispute with regard to the payment of fees and acknowledgment of the same.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, some of the complainants contended that due to ill-health they had to discontinue the course and in one of the complaint complainant contended that the opposite party accommodated hostel in Ayurveda hospital ward and another complaint contended that opposite party demanded extra fees. On account of the deficiency on the part of the Opposite party institution the complainants could not continue their studies in Opposite Party institution and thereafter claimed refund of fees, the Opposite Party institution refused to refund the amount. Hence came up with the above complaints.
Opposite Parties on the contrary contended that the complainants were withdrawn voluntarily and their institution is a private institution has no government aid. Further contended that on account of non-availing of the seat they have factually suffered loss etc., etc., and denied the deficiency of service.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, there was no denial to provide service agreed upon by the Opposite Parties. When that being so, the entire burden laid upon the complainants to establish that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party institution. Except the self-serving statement of the complainants no such material evidence placed on record to prove the allegations of the complainants made in their respective complaints.
Now the points for consideration is that, on perusal of the material evidence placed before us reveals that the complainants discontinued the institution because of their own reasons. The complainants and their parents well aware that the opposite party instituions is not government institution on the other hand it is private institution running without aid from the government. Students seeking admissions to professional private colleges like opposite party institution should think of the implications before seeking admission. The students as well as the parents fair enough to understand the consequences. Because every private institutions issued with the prospectus to the students before seeking admission. The students as well as their parents invariably signed the declarations and matured enough to understand the implications. Even in the above complaints the complainants as well as their parents invariably signed the declarations before seeking admission. Therefore the complainants and their respective parents are bound by the information supplied at the time of admission. As we know that the cancellation of admission is received before or after the start of academic session obviously seat cannot be filled by the institute. Since the complainant as well as their parents invariably signed the admission form before seeking admission to institute, they are not entitled refund fee paid by them. Because there is a clear prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission. Thus it is evident that this fora cannot issue a mandamus to the opposite party institution for refund of fee to the complainants. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party institution in all the complaints.
However, In a case, Navdeep Singh Vs I.I.T.T College of Engineering, Village Polewal District Nawanshahar and Ors ( on Vol. CXXXIV-(2003-2) Punjab Law Report) in which it was observed in paragraph 6 as under
The petitioner has neither controverted the ascertain contained in the written statement of respondent No. 1 that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the fact of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner
In another case, Rai Singh Vs. The MaharashiDayanand University & Ors. (VOLCVII-(1994.2) The Punjab Law Reporter) In which it was observed in paragraph 10 as under
10. Students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case. The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may suit him at a given time. For what has been noticed, the view taken in Madhavika Khurana s case (supra) cannot stand scrutiny and consequently the same is over-ruled.
ALOK JAIN Vs. GURU GOBIND SINGH & ANR. 2015) CPJ 112 (NC)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g), 15-Education Non refund of counselling fee Appellant got admission in Opposite Party No. 1 University and Opposite Party No. 2 College and deposited counselling fee along with security fee Meantime, appellant got admission elsewhere Respondent returned only security amount and refused to refund counselling amount-Complaint before District Forum filed-Dismissed-Hence present appeal Appellant attended classes for one month and then applied for refund of fee, because he had obtained admission elsewhere since, he applied after cut off date as given in admission brochure, appellant was according to terms and conditions, disentitled to reimbursement of fee.
FIIT JEE LTD Vs. S. BALAVIGNESH III(2015) CPJ 112 (NC)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 21(b)-Education-Admission-Coaching discontinued due to illness-Refund of fee denied Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission partly allowed appeal-hence revision-As per declaration contained in enrollment form, student taking admission is not entitled to refund of any part of fee paid by him irrespective of ground on which he withdraws admission Where seat vacated on account of withdrawal by student during currency of course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against vacant seat, refusal of coaching institute to refund fee cannot be said to be unfair trade practice.
However these judgments are applicable to the case on hand. The placing reliance on these citations and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that, the complaints are liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded herein above.
V. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaints are dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 14 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of February 2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 Krishna Shastri Complainant in CC.No.29/2015.
CW1 Praveenkumar Complainant in CC.No.49/2014.
CW1 Thejus Chandran Complainant in CC.No.245/2014.
CW1 D.V.L.Narasimhamurthy Complainant in CC.No.76/13.
CW1 Mr.V.Nagaraju Complainant in CC.No.264/2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.29/2015:
Ex C1 O/c of the Legal notice.
Ex C2 Acknowledgement (No s 2)
Ex C3 Copy of the reply notice.
Ex C4 Copy of the seat allotment slip.
Ex C5 Copy of the fee paid challan.
Ex C6 Copy of the fee paid challan.
Ex C7 Copy of the receipt.
Ex C8 Copy of the receipt.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.49/2014:
Ex C1 Copy of the Receipt.
Ex C2 Copy of the Receipt.
Ex C3 Copy of the seat allotment slip.
Ex C4 Copy of the receipt.
Ex C5 Copy of the fee paid bank challan.
Ex C6 Copy of the request letter.
Ex C7 Copy of the request letter.
Ex C8 Copy of the Dr. Certificate.
Ex C9 Copy of the Receipt.
Ex10 Copy of Receipt.
Ex11 O/c of legal notice.
Ex12 Copy of the reply notice.
Ex13 District Forum judgment copy.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.245/2014:
Ex C1 09.07.2013-Original seat allotment letter issued by the
COMEDK UGET 2013.
Ex C2 09.07.2013-Original letter issued by the COMEDK UGET
for having sent the amount of rupees 50,000/- to the Opposite Party.
Ex C3 17.01.2014-Office copy of the Legal notice issued to the
Opposite Party.
Ex C4 18.01.2014-Original Postal acknowledgment issued by the
Postal Authority for having served the legal notice to the O.P.
Ex C5 01.03.2014-Office copy of the Legal notice issued to the
Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.76/2013:
Ex C1 01.06.2012-Seat allotment slip issued by the O.P. in
No. 3699 in favour of the Shubhashree D.N.
Ex C2 01.06.2012-Copy of the payment slip issued by the Axis
Bank Mangalore-3 for Rs. 8,850/- in proof of payment made by the complainant.
Ex C3 16.06.2012-Receipt No. 15326 issued by the O.P. for
Rs. 6,000/- in proof of payment made by the complainant.
Ex C4 16.06.2012-Receipt No. 98438 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by
the O.P in proof of payment made by the complainant.
Ex C5 18.06.2012-Letter addressed by the complainant to O.P.
Ex C6 23.06.2012-Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex C7 05.09.2012-Advocate Notice issued on behalf of the
complainant to O.P.
Ex C8 06.09.2012 Postal Receipt.
Ex C9 19.09.2012 Reply Notice by the O.P to the complainant.
Ex C10 21.06.2012 Receipt No. 002803 issued by Servodhaya
Puttur College, Thumkur for Rs. 1,939/-.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant in CC.No.264/2013:
Ex C1 09.05.2013-Copy of Receipt No. 0001145 for the amount
paid towards rent.
Ex C2 09.05.2013-Copy of the seat Allotment slip No. 4844.
Ex C3 09.03.2013-Copy of challan having been deposited tuition
fee No. 000 1471.
Ex C4 08.07.2013 Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the
Opposite Party.
Ex C5 Copy of acknowledgment cards (2 Nos.)
Ex C6 Copy of extract of Bank Pass Book of the
complainant.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party in CC.No29/2015:
RW1 Ramesh Shetty H, Principal of O.P in CC No. 29/2015.
RW1 Ramesh Shetty H, Principal of O.P in CC No. 49/2015.
RW1 Peter Fernandes, service of O.P in CC No. 245/2014.
RW1 Ramesh Shetty H, Principal of O.P in CC No. 76/2013.
RW1 Ramesh Shetty H, Principal of O.P in CC No. 264/2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party in CC.No.49/2015:
Ex R1: College Prospectus.
Ex R2: Copy of the Application No. 16525 dated 09.05.2013.
Ex R3: Copy of the Bond dated 09.05.2013.
Ex R4: Copy of the Undertaking dated 09.05.2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party in CC.No. 245 /2014:
Ex R1: Copy of approval letter dated 19.03.2013 received from
AICTE.
Ex R2: Copy of the list of students registered for the year 2013 by
VTU bearing dated 16.011.2013.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party in CC. No. 76 /2013:
Ex R1: Copy of the Application for admission.
Ex R2: Copy of the Bond.
Ex R3: Copy of the Undertaking.
Dated:29.02.2016 PRESIDENT
