DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the   10^th day of February, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member          Date of filing: 03.09.2019   

CC/220/2019

Arumughan

S/o Mayan, Aranghat House

Sankuvaramthodu, Kalpathy Post

Palakkad – 678 003                                           -         Complainant

(By Adv. Surendran P A)

                                                           V/s

1. The Principal/Manager

M/s Little Flower College

Near Govt. Victoria College

Thorapalayam, Palakkad-1

2. The Managing Director

M/s Little Flower College

Near Govt. Victoria College

Thorapalayam, Palakkad-1                                 -         Opposite parties

(Opposite parites 1 & 2 by Adv. Kiran G Raj A)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.   Gist of the complaint is the complainant approached 1^st opposite party, Principal/Manager in charge of Little Flower College which is a private college; for admission to 1^st year B.com (Regular Course) on 10/07/2019.  During discussion complainant informed 1^st opposite party that his son has applied for other courses in Government Institutions and if gets selection, 1^st preference will be given to Government Institutions.  As per 1^st opposite party’s demand, he paid Rs.6,000/- towards advance fee for 1^st year B.com along with his certificate. 

          The next day i.e. on 11/07/2019, the complainant’s son got message in his mobile phone informing that he has been selected for Agricultural Mechanical 2 year course at Government ITI functioning at Perumatty, Palakkad District.  On the same day, the complainant’s son approached the 1^st opposite party and informed him about the communication received and his decision to join Government Institution.  When he requested 1^st opposite party to return the advance fee and certificate, 1^st opposite party directed him to come with his father on the next day as the Principal was not available on that day.

          On the next day when they approached 1^st opposite party only returned the certificate and told that ‘fee once remitted will not be refunded’ as per their policy.  Even after their request, the 1^st opposite party was not ready to refund the amount.  Opposite party’s decision without giving any service to the student had caused great mental agony.  Eventhough complainant issued legal notice through his counsel on 24/07/2019, opposite party did not respond.

          So the complainant has approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties

1. To refund Rs. 6,000/- paid towards fee with 12% interest.
2. To give Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and distress suffered by the complainant.
3. To give Rs. 3,000/- for financial loss suffered.
4. To give Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation and such other reliefs as the Commission finds fit and proper to grant.

2.   After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.  

3.   The opposite parties contended that Little Flower College is a private institution run by the 2^nd opposite party without any financial aid from any source.  This is a famous institution in Palakkad and they conduct various courses in different subjects under Calicut and Bharatiar University.  The admission to the institution is limited and the staff pattern and the class arrangements were made on the basis of the number of students joined in the institution for undergoing different courses.

          The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for admission of his son to 1^st B.com course.  The rules and regulations of the institution were read over to the complainant and a copy was given to them.  The complainant and his son read over the contents and they signed the application and submitted necessary documents for getting admission.  There was no occasion to discuss extraneous matter except the admission of the student.  If the petitioner had any intention to discontinue the course, the college would not have given admission to the student.  They admit that the complainant paid Rs. 6,000/- as admission fee out of the total fee of Rs. 9,000/- per year.  The demand notice issued by the complainant was against the agreement signed by him.  That is the reason for not replying to their notice.

          The complainant did not intimate the opposite party about the communication received by the complainant and further developments.  When the complainant approached them for return of his credentials, that was complied and returned to him; but there was no request from the side of the complainant to return the money as alleged.  There was no provision to return the amount to the complainant and if this practice is followed, many students may ask for return of admission fee after joining other courses.  The total fee for the 1^st B.com course was Rs.9,000/- and the understanding was to pay the balance amount shortly.  But he did not pay the balance amount and issued legal notice to the opposite parties.

          The opposite party college is a private institution and no financial assistance is received from the Government or any source and if the practice of returning the admission fee, when the student gets admission in another institution is followed opposite party has no option other than to close it. 

          There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  It is incorrect to say that the complainant did not get any service from the institution.  Irreparable loss is caused to the opposite party institution due to the sudden breaking of the course by the complainant.  Complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite parties.  So the complaint has to be dismissed with cost for opposite parties.

4.   Complainant’s evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A4.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and Ext. B1 marked in evidence.  2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1.  Evidence closed and heard the parties.

5.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.

6.  Point No. 1 to 3

      Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, for the admission of his son for 1^st year B.Com course in their institution.  Complainant’s contention is that during the discussion of admission, complainant informed the opposite party that his son had applied for other course in Government colleges and if gets admission there, first preference will be given to Government Institution.  The 1^st opposite party agreed this and he took admission and paid Rs. 6,000/- towards fee.  Next day his son got message that he has been selected for Agricultural Mechanical 2 year course at Government ITI Permutti, Palakkad.  The same day he approached for the refund of the advance amount and certificates, but they returned only the certificates and refused to return the advance amount.  The complainant states that the opposite party’s decision to reject the request without providing any service is illegal. 

7.   Opposite party countered the complainant’s contention stating that there was no occasion for any discussion as stated in the complaint.  Complainant’s son took admission to 1^st B.com course after reading and understanding the rules and regulations.  The complainant and his son read over the contents and after full satisfaction, signed the application for admission and submitted necessary documents for getting admission.

8.   In support of their argument, the opposite parties produced the Application for admission and Declaration by Applicant and parent annexed to it which is marked as Ext. B1.  In Ext.B1, 2^nd page, under the heading Rules & Regulations, Clause (5), it is written that fee once paid is not refundable under any circumstances.  (6^th) clause states that students will be made liable to pay the entire course fee, including any other courses doing with academic course, if any happens to leave at any time, after taking admission.

9.   The reason stated by the opposite party for non-refunding of the fee is that if this practice is followed many of the students may ask for return of the fee after joining different courses.  The opposite party being a private institution is not getting any financial assistance from any source.  They are running the institution and their staffs are paid from the fees they get from the students.  If they allow this practice they will be forced to close down their institution.

10. According to the complainant, complainant’s son took admission on 10/07/2019 and the very next day they got communication regarding his admission in Government College.  He approached the opposite party on the next day and informed about this and requested for refund of the amount. 

11. The purpose of taking advance fee, is that they are blocking that seat so that they cannot admit any other student in that seat.  Here the complainant’s son informed about his withdrawal from the course without delay; so the opposite party can very well admit another student in that place.

12. Further, normally when an amount is received as fee, the fee receipt will show separate details like admission fee, tuition fee, etc.  Here the fee receipt which is marked as Ext. A1 only shows fee of Rs. 6,000/-  Retaining the full amount including tuition fee is without any justification.

It is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in not refunding the balance amount other than the admission fee.  The conduct of the opposite party had caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for that. 

In the result, the complainant is partly allowed.

          As the opposite party has not specifically stated the amount of admission fee, we tentatively place it as Rs. 2,000/- in the absence of better evidence.  Hence we direct the opposite party to refund Rs.4,000/- being the tuition fee with 10% interest from 10/07/2019 till realization.  We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for their unfair trade practice and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of the litigation.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 10^th day of February, 2023.      

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                        Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant

Ext. A1 – Cash receipt dated 10/07/2019.

Ext. A2 – Legal notice dated 24/07/2019.

Ext. A3 – Postal acknowledgement.

Ext. A4 – Postal acknowledgement dated 24/07/2019.  

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties 

Ext. B1 - Application for admission and Declaration by Applicant

               and parent.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side:

DW1 - The Managing Director, M/s Little Flower College – 2^nd Opposite party

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL

Cost- Rs. 2,500/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.