FA No.694 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.No.269 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR

Between:

Dr.V.Kalyana Seetharatnaiah
S/o V.Satyanarayana, Apt.No.501,
Uma Towers, Ganganammapet, Tenali

Previous Address:
Dr.V.Kalyana Seethartnaiah
S/o V.Satyanarayana
4/2, Kannavarithota, Jhon Bldg.,
Guntur.

                                                                Appellant/complainant

        A N D

The Principal

Katuri Medical College

China Konrupadu Prasthipadu Mandal

Guntur, Guntur Dist.

Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the Appellants            Party in person

Counsel for the Respondent          None

QUORUM:    SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                               AND

      SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

  WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

                     TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

    Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member.)

***

1.     The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.     The appellant joined MBBS with the respondent college in the year,2003. The duration of the course is from 2003 till 2008. The appellant has completed his MBBS in the year, 2009. At the time of the admission with the respondent college, the appellant paid tuition fee and other fee as required and he has also paid a sum of `10,000/- towards caution deposit with the respondent college which has to be returned to him after completion of the course. After the completion of the course the appellant requested the respondent college to return the amount of `10,000/- deposited under the head “caution deposit”.

3.     The appellant’s version is that when he approached the respondent college with a request for return of the caution deposit, the respondent college had taken the receipt on the pretext that the amount would be paid to him and thereafter the respondent college refused to return the amount compelling the appellant to get issued notice dated 15-02-2010 which could not draw any response from the respondent college.

4.     It is contended on behalf of the respondent college that the appellant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and that there is no deficiency in service on its part. The appellant has not filed the receipt and even otherwise any caution deposit is nonrefundable. The appellant has to pay fee of `51,000/- each year for a period of 5 years of which the appellant has paid for 4 ½ years and he is due an amount of `27,500/- for the remaining six months.

5.     The appellant has filed his affidavit. The documents filed by him are marked as ExA1 to A5. The manager of the respondent college has filed his affidavit and the documents,ExB1 toB6.

6.     The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to produce the receipt and that the receipt number mentioned in the notice viz., 37 though tallied with the copy of the receipt filed by the respondent college it does not contain particulars of the caution deposit.

7.     Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed the appeal contending that the respondent college filed manipulated copy of the receipt and in the original receipt retained by the respondent college the amount of `10,0000/- is shown against the caution deposit. The copy of the receipt is filed along with the appeal which shows the amount against the caution deposit. The respondent college returned the certificates to the appellant. The respondent college has not given reply to the notice dated 5-02-2010 of the appellant.

8.     The respondent college has not chosen to contest the claim in the appeal.

9.     The point for consideration is whether the respondent college is liable to refund the caution deposit to the appellant?

10.    The appellant joined the respondent college in the year 2003 and he has completed the MBBS in the year,2009. The appellant paid an amount of `55,000/-, `10,000/- towards caution deposit and `.5,000/- towards stipend fee during the first year;  He has paid an amount of `55,000/- towards tuition fee and `5,000/- towards stipend fee for the third year and equal amount for the fourth year. According to the appellant, the respondent collected an amount of `27,500/- for the six months and he is not due any amount to the respondent college. The receipt dated 6-10-2003 for `15,000/-, receipt dated 21-12-2004 for `60,000/-, receipt dated 17-12-2005 for `60,000/-, receipt dated 4-12-2006 for `60,000/- and the receipt dated 6-11-2007 for `32,500/- would show the appellant paid an amount of `2,37,500/-.

11.    The respondent college claimed an amount of `27,500/- for the period of six months. The Fee Control Account filed by the respondent college would show that the appellant has paid an amount of `2,82,500/-. The receipt dated 6-10-2003 was issued for `15,000/- of which the amount mentioned `5,000/- towards stipend is not disputed. The amount of `10,000/- is shown as the Fee other than tuition fee in the copy of the  receipt filed by the respondent and the amount is shown against the column Tuition fee in the receipt filed along with the appeal. It is not denied that the appellant has got issued notice to the respondent college and the respondent college failed to give reply to the notice. In the notice the appellant handing over the receipt to the staff of the respondent college is stated as under:

“My client’s son after completion of his MBBs course in your college in 2009, requested your office for refund of the said amount and as per the instructions of your office he handed over the Original receipt in your office”.

12.    The respondent college has not denied that the appellant has handed over the receipt to it as required by it for the purpose of making return of the caution deposit. The respondent college has not filed the fee register to dispel any doubt as to whether the amount of `10,000/- was collected towards caution deposit or under any other count. The respondent college has not come with clear stand to say that the amount was collected towards the fee other than the tuition fee but not the caution deposit. The statement of the respondent college that the caution deposit is nonrefundable would prove the payment of the amount of `10,000/- by the appellant .

13.    The respondent college disputed the caution deposit to return to the appellant on the premise that the caution deposit is nonrefundable.  The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.488 dated 15-09-2003 in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 317 of 1993 with regard to admission into professional courses in the country. The G.O. directs private medical college to return the caution deposit to the student after completion of the course. It is mentioned in the GO that:

iii)  The management shall not collect any other fees in any other form ie, in the name of development fee, building fund fee, infrastructure development fee, etc. except the following fee/depsoits frot he steuents belongs to all categories namely A, B & C:

        (A)    Hostel fee should be collected in the following manner:

        a.     Hostel Rent                : Per Quarter in Advance

        b.     Mess Charges     : Per month at the end of the Month

        (B)    A Nominal refundable Deposit of Rs.10,000/- at the time of admission towards library deposit, laboratory deposit, etc. 

14.    The respondent college should have returned to the appellant the caution deposit to the appellant after he had completed the course. The respondent college has not returned the caution deposit when the appellant requested it whereby the appellant was compelled to get twice issued notice through his advocate. The respondent college has not responded to the request of the appellant. For the first time before the District Forum the respondent college has pitted the arrears of `27,500/- towards tuition fee against the claim of the appellant for return of the caution deposit.

15.    The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that had the appellant been due the amount of `27,500/- the respondent college would have demanded him at the time of handing over the certificates to the appellant and at least the respondent would have given reply to the notice that was issued on behalf of the appellant. He has submitted that the respondent college has not produced the fee receipt register to show the correctness of its demand for the amount of `27,500/-. Further, he has submitted that the respondent failed to return the caution fee and to avoid payment of the amount; it has taken shelter under the plea of arrears of tuition fee. We accept the contention of the learned counsel as the respondent college failed to prove its plea of arrears of fee as also its authority to retain the caution deposit. In any view of the matter, the respondent college has committed deficiency in service by not returning the caution fee to the appellant.  The appellant is entitled to the amount of `10,000/- with interest thereon @9%p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. The District Forum had taken an erroneous view that the appellant failed to produce the receipt where the circumstances show the receipt in possession of the respondent college.

16.    In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside.   Consequently the complaint is allowed.  The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay `10,000/- with interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment together with costs of `2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                    Dt.30.11.2011

KMK*