DOF. 23 / 3 /09 DOO. 8 /7/10 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 8th day of July 2010 C.C.No.79/2009 P.K.VinayaMohanan, ‘Diya’, Palliyammoola, P.O.Alavil. Complainant Principlal, Dental College, Kannur Medical College, Anjarakandi. (Rep. by Adv.K.K.Balaram) Opposite Parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.34, 500/- deposited by the complainant. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Daughter of the complainant joined in BDS course as per the medical entrance examination conducted in the year 2007-08. Complainant was compelled to remit Rs.34, 500/- as miscellaneous deposit over and above the Govt. fixed tuition fee Rs.87, 000/-at the time of admission. Though repeatedly requested college authorities did not issue receipt for the said amount. His daughter Sonam Devika got a place in the merit list eligible to get seat for MBBS in Calicut Medical College, in the Medical Entrance Examination 2008-09. Hence he applied to get the T.C of his daughter from the college but they demanded a huge amount Rs.4, 80,000/- and reluctant to issue T.C even at the last stage of admission to the MBBS course. When he was supposed to approach court they issued T.C by receiving Rs.1, 00,000/- as per the direction given in the prospectus (page 39(12-2-4). On the same day on 26.7.08 he has given application to get back the amount Rs.34, 500/- which was received from his earlier. Application was given to Accounts Officer, Krishnakumar as directed by the Principal. But the authorities did not return the amount even though continuously approached. They are agreeing to give the amount but not yet refunded. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice sent by the Forum opposite party entered appearance and filed version with following contentions. The complaint is fully baseless and the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of consumer protection act. The daughter of complainant Kumari Sonam Devika joined in Kannur Medical College for BDS course as per the merit list of Kerala Medical Entrance examination 2007-08. It is denied the allegation that complainant was compelled to remit Rs.34,500/- when he went to college for admission after remitting the Govt. Approved fees Rs.87,000/-. The allegation that he did get the receipt from the college even after repeatedly request, application for getting the deposit amount. Rs.34,500/- was given to Accounts officer on 17.9.09 as directed by Principal, complainant contacted on 17.9.09 and 14.1.09, contacted principal and also written letter, the amount was not refunded though promised to refund etc. are denied by the opposite party. The fees structure of the students those who are admitted from the merit list in the self financial colleges was determined on the basis of the recommendations of Mohammed Committee. According to Mohammed Committee report the fees of students from merit list is calculated taking into account the total fee of the students 5 ½ years and their members Rs.34,500/- is received for the purpose meeting university affiliation fee, Library fee, fees in connection with other miscellaneous items etc. The daughter of complainant Kumari Sonam Devika completed her first year BDS course and utilized study facilities provided by the college. Hence it is not justifiable to ask for return of the amount. It is false to say that college authorities demanded a huge amount for issuing TC. It is also not correct saying that the T.C issue on receiving Rs.1, 00,000/- . Daughter of complainant after completing first year course but without writing for examination joined in another college for MBBS. It result the vacancy of one seat. According to the decision of Dental council of India and Govt. of kerala admission will be completed in the month of September so that 5 ½ years fees will be lost. Hence Sonam Devika is liable to give 5 ½ years fees. But she has not paid the amount and thus this opposite party suffered a great financial loss. She is liable to pay the loss suffered by the opposite party since the seat became vacant for the rest of the course period. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. This is a complaint aimed only to appropriate some amount. Hence to dismiss this complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1, PW2, DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A6. Issue No.1 The first question arose is whether the father is entitled to file a consumer complaint. Whether he is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable. It is a well accepted principle that even a family member s entitled to maintain a complaint. Hon’ble state Commission of Kerala (CPJ 2000(I) Kerala 315) held that complaint filed deceased’s brother is maintainable. In Para 8 of the decision in spring Meadows Hospital case the Hon’ble Supreme court 1998(I)CPJ I (SC) observes that “ The Act gives a comprehensive definition of consumer who is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term “ consumer” even a member of the family cannot be denied the status of consumer under the act and in an action by any such member of the family for any deficiency of service, it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract”. Since the apex court has taken a clear position upon this question we have no hesitation to hold that the father of the candidate is competent to lodge the case with full status of a consumer resultantly the present complaint in hand is undoubtedly maintainable. Issue Nos. 2 to 4 Admittedly the daughter of complainant admitted against govt. seats in Kannur Medical college for BDS course after paying Govt. fixed fee Rs.87,000/-. Complainant’s case is that when he went for joining he has also been compelled to remit another amount of Rs.34,500/- as miscellaneous amount over and above the fees Rs.87,000/-. He has already paid. Opposite party did not directly admit the payment but opposite party has contended that Rs.34, 500/- is received from students for the purpose of meeting the expenses of University Affiliation fee, Library fee and some extra fees. In the ordinary course Sonam Devika also might have remitted the amount. Opposite party has also contended that Sonam Devika, the daughter of complainant has used the facilities of study materials and other convenience during her 1 year course period hence there is no justification for the demand to refund the amount. This contention of opposite party itself amount to implied admission that they have received the amount form the complainant. Ext.A2 counterfoil issued by Punjab National Bank proves beyond doubt that Rs.34, 500/- received by the opposite party from Sonam, the daughter of complainant. The central point to be decided here is that whether opposite party is liable to refund the above said amount Rs.34,500/- to complainant since she has discontinued the studies in order to join for MBBS course. It s argued by the counsel for the opposite party that rs.34,500/- taken from the students is meant for University affiliation fee, Library fee, Transportation fee, arts and sports fee, course material fee etc. But opposite party is keeping diplomatic silence with respect to the amount of different items. It is also notable point that opposite party has not proved that receipt has issued to the said amount. Receipt if not issued that itself is a deficiency in service in a way. More over opposite party did not explain what all items are covered in the fees Rs.87, 000/- paid by the complainant. The document available on the record consists of the information furnished by director of Students services & state public information. With respect to the subject matter under discussion Director of Students service forwarded the following information. 1. Student affiliation fee for professional course Rs.200/ 2. The details of remittance of the student Affiliation fee of Rs.200/- sports affiliation fee of Rs.75/- and university union of Rs.40/- by each BDS student is not yet forwarded to this office from Kannur Dental College, Anjarakandy. 3. University Union fee of Rs.40/- and sports affiliation fee of Rs.75/- is collected from each student per year. The above information together with the silence of opposite party with respect to the amount of individual items reveals that the total amount for the purposes explained will come only meager amount. The first and most important item of expense that comes form the fees Rs.34, 500/- is University affiliation fees. That actually comes only Rs.200/- and all the items pointed out comes less than Rs.200/-. It has come out in evidence altogether four or five items. Even if it is ten items the amount may come only Rs.2000/-. At any rate the opposite party cannot claim an amount more than Rs.4500/-. If not opposite party should have been taken interest to bring to the notice of the Forum the actual facts. Hence we are of opening that opposite party is liable to refund 4/5 of the amount. Thus complainant is entitled get refunded an amount of Rs.27600/- together with a sum of Rs.400/- as cost of this proceedings. The issues 2 to4 are found infavour of the complainant. Order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.27600/-(Rupees Twenty seven thousand six hundred only) and to pay Rs.400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party as per the provisions of the consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the fee receipt issued from Canara bank A2.Counterfoil issued from Punjab National Bank. A3.Copy of the prospectus page 11. A4.Leter issued by OP A5. Copy of the letter sent to OP. A6. Postal acknowledgement card Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant PW2.Sonam Devika Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.A.Krishna Kumar /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
