Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/49/2014

Kesari Harni chandana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal Sree Chaitanya Junior College - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

Date of filing       : 03-07-2014

Date of Disposal : 15-06-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

  Monday, this the 15th  day of JUNE, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                                      Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

                             

                      C.C.No.49/2014

 

K.Hari Chandana,

Being minor aged about 16 years

Rep. by her father and natural guardian

    K.Rajendra Singh,

Resident of 26-09-217/1, Mosque street,

Bakthavastal Nagar, Nellore,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                                      …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. THE PRINCIPAL,

Sree Chaitanya Junior College,

Ramalingapuram, Nellore City,

S.P.S.R.Nelllore District.

 

2. THE PRINCIPLAL,

Sree Chaitanya Mahila Kalasala,

Chaitanya nagar, Poranki,

Vijayawada Rural – 521137,

Krishna District.

 

3. The Managing Director,

Sree Chaitanya Educational Institutions

Vijayawada Krishna District.

 

 (OP3 was added as per orders in I.A.No.183/2014,

      dated19-02-2015)                                                      … Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on  02-06-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of the complainant (in-person) and  Sri G.Suresh, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties remained absent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

   This consumer case is filed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them to pay Rs.54,800/- with interest @24% p.a., from the date of leave from the hospital till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of complaint and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem it and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

I (a) The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as follows as hereunder:-

  It is the case of the complainant that he was offered by the 1^st opposite party No.1 to join in opposite parties institutions for junior inter Bi.P.c in English medium with second language of Sanskrit.  That the opposite party No.1 offered the admissions to the complainant at Nellore institutions as well as in other area institutions of the opposite parties.  The parent of the complainant namely K.Rajendra Singh came along with the complainant and visited the 1^st  opposite party college premises for the admission.  So, the opposite parties had advised the complainant to join at Vijayawada Sri Chaitnaya Mahila College campus at Poranki and the 1^st opposite party No.1 had that there is best education at Vijayawada, Poranki campus.  Even that the admission staff of Vijayawada campus are also available at Nellore campus of the institutions.  As per the 1^st opposite party advice, the complainant had purchased the application for joining for a sum of Rs.300/- and so the 1^st opposite party had issued an application to the complainant.

 

(b)  It is also further submitted by the complainant that the allegations in para-4 of her complaint that as per the instructions of the opposite parties staff, she had filled an application and submitted it the same to the opposite parties admission staff at Nellore and the opposite parties had collected a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 19-4-2014 for an admission into the hostel at Vyedhi Bhavan-2 at Vijayawada Mahila college and the opposite parties have reserved seat to the complainant.  As per the opposite parties admission staff, the complainant had agreed to join at Vijayawada and the  complainant had prepared for the payment of admission fee, hostel fee and prepared for the payment of admission fee, hostel fee and tuition fee as per the opposite parties advice.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.3990/- and Rs.5,810/- in total a sum of Rs.54,800/- on several heads and said in the receipts issued by the opposite parties from time to time.  So, the copies of all the receipts issued to the complainant by the opposite parties are filed herewith for kind consideration of this Hon’ble Forum.

 

( c )  It is also submitted by the complainant the allegations in para 5 of her complaint that she could not accustomed in the hostel atmosphere and requested the opposite parties to vacate the premises.  But, the 2^nd opposite party had advised the complainant to shift from the said hostel as the hostel admissions are overcrowded and the opposite parties are unable to adjust the room in a free position and the complainant had suffered with ill-health.  So, the complainant’s parents were met with the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party had said that they will try to adjust the same and postponing the same for 5 or 6 days and then the 1^st opposite party had told that the 2^nd opposite party was unable to arrange a minimum crowded room for the complainant and then the complainant had told that she will shift from the hostel to outside and then the 2^nd opposite party had requested to shift her to some other campus of their institutions.  Thereafter, the complainant’s parents had discussed with the 2^nd opposite party by phone and they came to conclusion to shift the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party’s campus.  So, the complainant had got the permission to leave the hostel and as well as college from 2^nd opposite party’s campus on 18-06-2014 due to ill-health in the hostel.  It is further stated that as per receipt bearing no.15328 of the 2^nd opposite party’s college hostel, the complainant had left the said hostel.

 

(d) It is also further narrated by the complaint the allegations in para-6 of her complaint that her father Rajendra Singh had made several calls to both 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to refund the amount as he was borrowed the said amount from his friends to get her admission at Poranki branch and he has to repay the amounts to his friends.  But, the opposite parties 1 and 2 were postponing to refund the said amount from time to time and not going proper reply.

 

(e) It is also further submitted by the complainant the allegations against the opposite parties in para-7 of her complaint that there are causes of action to file this complaint against the opposite parties.  The part of cause of action of the cause arose at Nellore and this Hon’ble Forum is having the jurisdiction to try case and the opposite parties are having branch office in Nellore.  Hence, this complaint.

 

II. DEFENCE:  The 1^st opposite party was represented by Sri G.Suresh, after filing a vakalat on 25-08-2014 and notice was sent to 2^nd opposite party by registered post but an acknowledgment was not yet returned and thereby the case was adjourned to 22-09-2014.  Inspite of several adjournments were granted to opposite parties but they had not filed any written version of the case.  The institution of Chaitanya education was issued receipts for payment with regard to admission and fee by the complainant.  The complainant was impleaded only the principals and so clarification was sought for and the case was posted for 09-12-2014 for hearing.  Thereafter, the complainant was filed I.A.No.183/2014 for amendment of the complaint on 20-01-2015.  Then, the complaint was amended and carried out and neat copy of complaint filed by the complainant after inclusion of 3^rd opposite party.  After that without serving notice to 3^rd opposite party and it was returned and subsequently a notice was served dated 03-05-2015  by publication in Janatha paper at Vijayawada and a copy of the said paper was filed and 3^rd opposite party was called absent and posted the case for order reserved.  In nutshell, even though 1^st opposite party was contested the case but failed miserably in filing a written version.

 

III.  The complainant has filed her chief affidavit and the documents in support of her case on 14-11-2014.  No written arguments of the complainant was filed before the Forum.  Those documents which are filed marked as Exs.A1 and A2 by a way of a memo by the complainant on 26-11-2014.

 

IV. Basing on the material available on record such as complaint of complainant, and her chief-affidavit and the documents  filed before the Forum, the following points that arise for our determination of the case:-

 

1. Is the there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitle to get the reliefs sought for, if it is so, to what extent?
3. To what relief?

 

V.  Points 1 and 2:  In view of  these points are inter-dependant of each other, we have taken up together to determine the case.

           The complainant is in-person to argue the case vehemently that earlier he was offered by 1^st opposite party No.1 to join in opposite parties institutions for junior-inter Bi.P.C. in English Medium with second language of Sanskrit.  She has further contended that her father by name Mr.K.Rajendra Singh approached the 1^st opposite party college premises.  She has also further urged that she had paid a sum of Rs.54,800/- in total on several heads to the opposite parties and to that effect received the receipts from them and filed the same before this Hon’ble Forum and those documents which are marked as Exs.A1 and A2.

          While so, she could not accustomed in the hostel atmosphere and requested the opposite parties to vacate the premises she has also further advanced her arguments by saying that the hostel admissions are overcrowded and opposite parties are unable to adjust the room in a free position and thereby she had suffered with ill-health.  Therefore, her parents were met with the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party had said that they will try to adjust the same and post-poning the same for 5 or 6 days.  But opposite parties are miserably failed to provide facilities properly.  Finally, she had further contended that she had got permission to leave the hostel and as well as college from 2^nd opposites party’s campus on 18-06-2014 due to ill-health in the hostel.  Even though,  her further had contacted the opposite parties and requested them to refund the said amount, as her parents had borrowed from their friends and they have to re-pay to them. The opposite parties are not refunded the said amount to the complainant.  There is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence of opposite parties towards the complainant.  Finally, the complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs.

 

      It is apparently even though the 1^st opposite party represented by Sri G.Suresh, did not file written version in support of their case.  Inspite of notice is served to 3^rd opposite party absent and even then by publication in the news paper Janatha dt.30-05-2015, 3^rd opposite party did not turn up to set up its defense.  Inspite of a vakalat was filed by Sri G.Suresh, Advocate for 1^st opposite party did not evince any interest whatsoever to file written version in support of the case of first opposite party.    So, there is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  Finally, the said learned counsel for the complainant has prayed the Hon’ble Forum to allow the complaint with costs

                   

                Forum’s Findings and observations

 

       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant.  The complainant has also filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents contained in the complaint.   He led the evidence by way of an affidavit.  The 1st opposite party, even though represented by its said counsel, did not prefer to file written version in support of the case.  Thereafter, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are unrepresented and absent throughout the proceedings of the case. Literally, there is no case for defense of opposite parties.  Having accepted the fees which was stipulated by the opposite parties institutions and collected from the complainant, without rendering proper and adequate service to her, it is clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.  There is a lot of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant.  The complainant and her parents are subjected to mental worry and irreparable loss caused to them. It cannot be measured in terms of money.  The opposite parties and their main aim is to get wrongful gain.  It is clearly evident from the documents (receipts) which are filed and they are in the record.  So, it can be said that the complainant is entitled to get the fees paid to the opposite parties institutions   proportionately after proper deductions.

 

         The request of the complainant for application fee is rejected since application is submitted by the complainant, as regards the tuition fee, examination fee, games fee, deduction is allowed for one month.  Accordingly, Rs.3,000/- from the tuition fee, Rs.500/- from the examination fee one month from the games fee are deducted.  The complainant request for the fee paid towards the purchase of the books is disallowed, since the books useful for the complainant need, if she joins in any institution. The entire pocket money is ordered to be refunded.  The complainant is found entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.46,310/- along with costs of Rs.3,000/-.  The complainant might have suffered mental agony due to the attitude of the opposite parties.  Thus the complainant is granted damages of Rs.8,000/-.  The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,200/- being the publication charges in Janatha News paper.

           

Relevant Case-law : 

 

     Imparting education for fees as consideration is service as defined in C.P.Act, 1986.

    Bhupesh Khurana Vs. Viswa Budha Parishad 2000 CTJ 801 = II(2001) CPJ 74 (NC) – quoted with approval in M.Ravindranath Vs.Principal, Mercy College III (2002) CPJ 158(NC), where in it was held that wrongly admitting students, overlooking claim of complainant, is a deficiency in service – Admitting more students beyond sanctioned strength without informing concerned student is a deficiency in service – M/s.Sonal Matapurkar Vs. Sri S.Nijalingappa institute of Dental science. (1997) 5 CTJ 493(NC).

 

      In every consumer complaint against a school, college or a professional educational institute about their faulty services and deceptive practices, invariably the above objection about the jurisdiction of the consumer Fora is put forward in several cases have been rejected also on that ground.

 

      However, the National Commission has authoritatively held in Bhupesh Khurana & others Vs. Vishwa Budha Parishad and others 2000 CTJ 801(CP) that “ imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act”.

 

    The opposite parties are inhuman and they did not care for the various requests made by the complainant.  There is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant. Realization of justice is the ultimate function of law.  Consumer Forums should be wary of passing cryptic orders in the adjudication of complaints 2007 CTJ CP P6(SC).  Law assists those who are vigilant.  Justice is rendered in accordance with law.  We are convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.  Mental agony cannot be measured in terms of money.  These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

   

Point No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.46,310/- (Rupees forty six thousand three hundred and ten only), damages of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) along with publication charges of Rs.1,200/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred only) and costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), jointly and severally.  The opposite parties shall pay interest @9% (nine) p.a., on the amount of Rs.46,310/- from the date of the complaint i.e., from 03-07-2014 till realization.

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 15th day of JUNE, 2015.    

 

                                                                                      

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

14-11-2014

:

K.Rajendra Singh, S/o. Vijay Singh, resident of C/o.26-09-217/1, Mosque street, Bakthavatsal Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

			NIL -

                                                                        

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	-	:	Receipts issued by the opposite party college. (six in nos.)
Ex.A2	18-06-2014	:	Student leave – out pass issued by the opposite party college.

 EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                  

-N I L -                            

 

                                                                             Sd/-   

                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1)K.Hari Chandana,

   Being minor aged about 16 years

   Rep. by her father and natural guardian

   K.Rajendra Singh,

   Resident of 26-09-217/1, Mosque street,

   Bakthavastal Nagar, Nellore,

   S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                           

 

 

2) Sri THE PRINCIPLAL,

    Sree Chaitanya Mahila Kalasala,

    Chaitanya nagar, Poranki,

    Vijayawada Rural – 521137,

    Krishna District.

 

3) Sri G.Suresh,

    Advocate,

    Opp:R.C.M.Church,

    Kalyan Mosque Complex,

    Fathekhanpet,

    Nellore-1.

 

4) The Managing Director,

    Sree Chaitanya Educational Institutions

    Vijayawada Krishna District.