Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/466/2015

G.K.V.Shankar Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal, SSN College od Engineering - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Mohammed Hasai

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  11.12.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :  26.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 466 /2015

MONDAY THIS  26^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER  2016

 

Mr. G.K.V. Sankar Narayanan,

S/o. G.K.V. Subramanian,

No.22, Chathiram Street,

Nemili, Vellore District 631 051.                         .. Complainant

 

                                      ..Vs..

 

1.  The Principal,

SSN College of Engineering,

Old Mahabalipuram Road,

Kalavakkam,

Chennai 603 110.

 

2. The President,

SSN Trust,

No.211/95, V.M. Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.                                              ..Opposite parties 

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. Mohammed Hasain    

For the opposite parties              :   M/s. K. Parthasarathy & another

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to refund of Rs.1,90,350/- paid by him for his daughter with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation. 

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II     

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

            The  complainant submit that  he made admission for M.C.A. course under lateral entry with the opposite party  for his daughter  and paid Rs.36,000/- towards tuition fees on 3.8.2015 and Rs.1,54,350/- for facilities including transport, books, lab court,  I.D. card, wifi digital library fees.     The complainant’s daughter joined the college Hostel on 10.8.2015  and left the institution on 13.8.2015 and  she stayed in the opposite party’s hostel for three days and vacated from there due to homesickness.   Therefore the complainant immediately approached the opposite party and they have returned all the certificates submitted by the student and orally promised to her the fees will be refunded.  But to surprise the opposite party had not responded properly.  Hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party  on 7.11.2015 seeking refund of Rs.1,90,350/- paid by him for his daughter with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation.  As such, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.      Hence the complaint.

 

Written version of opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that moreover educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, in matters of admission, fees etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.   Furthermore, education is not a commodity.  Therefore only when the institution having admitted a student when it refuses to impart education, it may  be said that there is deficiency of service.  Therefore in this case, when complainant daughter left the course for her own personal reasons, the question of deficiency of service does not arise at all.   Considered in this proper perspective, there is no claim for refund of fees.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the  opposite parties. 

  

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

 

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5   marked on the side of the complainant,  written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3  marked on the side of opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.

6.        The complainant made admission of his daughter Layavarjitha for M.C.A. course under lateral entry with the opposite party and paid Rs.36,000/- towards tuition fees on 3.8.2015 and Rs.1,54,350/- for facilities including transport, books, lab court,  I.D. card, wifi digital library fees.  The learned counsel submitted that the complainant being the father of the student who was a retired High ways Inspector out of his hard earned money and paid the fees on behalf of his daughter to the opposite party’s institution and she joined the course on 10.8.2015 and left the institution on 13.8.2015 and  she stayed in the opposite party’s hostel for three days and vacated from there due to homesickness.   The complainant immediately approached the opposite party and they have returned all the certificates submitted by the student and orally promised to her that the fees will be refunded.  But to surprise the opposite party had not responded properly, hence the complainant issued a legal notice on 7.11.2015 seeking refund of Rs.1,90,350/- paid by him for his daughter failing which it will attract 24% interest with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation.  The complainant found it is a deficiency  of service by the opposite parties under Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) as consumer and deficiency of service u/s 2 (1) (o) of COPRA 1986.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking remedy for getting the fee Rs.1,90,350/- paid by him to be refunded along with 24% interest from the date of payment of fee i.e. 3.8.2018 to till date with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation charges.   

7.     The opposite parties 1 & 2 denied all the averments and allegations put forth by the complainant and the learned counsels of both the opposite parties never disputed that the student joined the course on lateral entry through counseling and joined the course in the single window system.  The vacancy position for O.C. candidate were notified on 27.7.2015 and for the lateral entry there was no vacancy up to  28.7.2015.   The learned counsel argued the admission of the candidate is on lateral entry vacancy and she left the college for her own reason which had created loss to the institution.    The learned counsel contended that there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties since the opposite parties are imparting education within an aim to achieve 100% result.  It is also contended that the learned counsel of the opposite parties by quoted Supreme Court Judgment in Maharshi Dayanand ..Vs.. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (I) SCC 159)  stating that “ the student is neither a consumer nor her institution rendering any service.  It is also pointed out that National Commission was swayed by the observation made in Bangalore water supply case, wherein the inequality in bargaining power was established  was not applicable here.    Hence the said case was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court rejecting the applicability of Bangalore Water supply case.   The learned counsel further states that a student is discontinued the course and after sometime   due to personal reasons, in such situation where is the question of deficiency of service arise.  It is totally a misconception to term it as  deficiency of service by the complainant hence prays to dismiss the complaint and relief sought by the complainant are unsustainable.

8.     Pursuant of the complaint, documents, written version,  proof affidavit and citations putforth by the complainant and the opposite parties it is judiciously observed and heard learned counsel arguments on both the sides. 

9.     The opposite parties raise an issue whether the students are an educational institution  coming under the purview of C.P. Act  the first issue that one must understand is that irrespective of the nature of education you want to pursue, all education provider are service providers.   The seminal 1978 judgment by the Supreme Court (BSB  ..Vs.. A. Rajappa & Ors. SC. 578) established that education is an industry and students are customers.  Many subsequent Judgments have upheld this view.  So the student is a customer and have every right to  except satisfactory service. The deficiency in service could happened either before the candidate joins the institute or during his or her tenure at the institute.    

10.    To cite dropping out of its course aggrieved case is Swanpnil Kadam  ..Vs..  SIG Engineering College, Pune (Sigce)  ruling by Maharashtra  State Consumer Forum ordered the  refund of  full fees with costs to a student who took admission in one college and moved to another.  Even if the college putout a notice that  they will not refund the fees, or make you sing an agreement about non-refundability of fees then it is bad in law.  Many consumer courts have held such an opinion  and ruled in favour of the student.

11.    Another case Janjanam Jagedeesh ..Vs.. College of Science and Technology Vishakhapatnam ruling by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  In this case this student took admission for M.Sc and then wanted to withdraw,  the commission was unequivocal  in asserting the student’s right to  withdraw from a college before the session begins.   As per UGC notification and fee refund the complainant came out of these disputes.    

12.    Another case is also Vaibahv Saxsena ..Vs.. Indian Institute of Aeronautics ruling by Delhi District Consumer Forum, this case is against the Aeronautics Institute the forum ordered “complete refund of fees it is beyond imagination how much trauma much have been caused to the students who lost two precious years apart from the loss of money. 

13.    Another case  is also Bupesh Khurana & ohers ..Vs.. Buddist Mission Dental College & Hospital, Ruling by Supreme Court of India , this supreme court case was much more scathing, it said “Any intuition which Cheats by making misleading claims, is liable to not only refund the money to you, but also pay interest as well as hefty penality.” 

14.    Another case Karishma Kanuga ..Vs.. WLC College of India ruling by Pune District Consumer  Forum.  Here the student Karishma successfully sued WLC to get a refund after taking admission for their media course.  Her main contention was that the course was unapproved and no classes took place for 41 days.  The district forum ruled to refund the fees fully in favour of the complainant.

15.    Another case Kanishk Sharma ..Vs.. Brilliant Tutorial ruling by East Delhi District  Consumer Forum.  “Even if you leave mid way through the course there is  a possibility of a partial refund.  In a case against a coaching institute the forum observed that “A student may leave in the midstream if he finds the service deficient, and to till him that fee once paid is not refundable is uncalled for and an unfair trade practice.”

16.    We, having gone through the citations put forth by the learned counsel  of the opposite parties quoting  

2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC),

Bihar School examination Board

..Vs..

Suresh Prasad Sinha

 

          2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases 159

MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

..VS..

SURJEET KAUR

 

 

describes about getting the certificates on completion on the course refusing to confirm the degree under deficiency of service.    The opposite party’s counsel had put forth the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Dated 9.1.2015 in the case of Shanmuga Arts Science and Technology Research Academy ..Vs.. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Froum, Thanjavur & another  filed writ and quash the order under article 226 of the Constitution of India.    This writ elicit it does not have no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint and the present proceedings are pending against the petition and contended it is abuse of law.    This case is challenge on the grounds of jurisdiction whereby in the present case the question of jurisdiction is within the limitation.   The other judgments reported in 2003 (6) SCC 697( Islamic Academy of Education and another ..Vs.. State of Karnataka and others)   and reported in 2002 (8 ) SCC 481 (T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others ..Vs.. State of Karnataka and others)  and other  17 orders mentioned by the opposite parties as it was describing about the quality of education and unaided institution about the maintenance and other guidelines of institution are explained.  In the present case this student or the complainant never disputed about the quality of education or standardize  of education the complainant claims the withdrawal of admission which was already accepted by the opposite parties and seeking refund of fees paid by the complainant for his daughter.   

17.    In April 2007, AICTE  announced that all institutions imparting technical education must refund entire fees (except a token amount of Rs.1000/-), if a student withdraws before starting of the course.   As per AICTE, each institutions is expected to maintain a waiting list, and  offer  admission from this list.   The AICTE rules as given than an additional 2 to 3 weeks to decide where they  want to study to get better prospect.   The academic calendar at engineering colleges are going haywire in the 1^st semester because the NITs did admission are coming at later date.  It is also suggested first the colleges should offer more admission than the number of seats they should estimate the drop out based on fast expression and offer more admission accordingly.  Second the last date for significant fee refund should be much before the beginning of semester so the rule may say that withdrawals till 1^st July will lose Rs.5,000/- withdrawal till 8^th July will lose Rs.10,000/- and thereafter for every week, an additional Rs.5000/- will be charged.  This will give an incentive to students to decide early.   Admissions from waiting list should happen in the month of July.  

18.    In the  present  case  the  opposite  parties neither informed to the complainant  nor to the student about the waiting list or any instruction in writing to  the  student  that  they will not refund the fees.   On completion of four days when the complainant approached the opposite party they abruptly returned the original certificate submitted by the candidate without refunding the money paid by her.     

19.    The University Grants Commission, New Delhi, F.No.1-3/2007 (CPP-II)  23^rd April 2007 issued a public notice under para-3 “in the public interest  shall maintain a waiting list of student / candidates.  In the event of a student/candidates withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat.  The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and retuned by the institution / university to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme.  Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel, rent where applicable.   

20.   The opposite parties counsel also has referred the Public Notice  issued in the year 2008 by the All India Council for Technical Education  in which it is mentioned i) the refund of fee paid by the candidate on his cancellation of joining the course only, the entire fee is less by Rs.1000/- is entitled ii) after beginning of the academic session and the seat could be  filled  by the institute before the cutoff date the Entire fee less the seat cancellation charges on prorata basis iii) On request  received  after the start of academic session  and seat could be filled by the  Institute  No refund (except security deposit). As contended by the complainant the above said conditions will be applicable only for the newly admitted candidates in the beginning of the course i.e first year course.   Therefore  the  said  condition  may not  be  applicable  for the present case. 

21.    In the present case the student left the institution and the hostel within three days from the date of admission and in the Ex.A2 has not given any break up for college caution deposit, hostel accommodation , hostel rent, hostel mess caution but only mentioned about transport, books, record books, lab court, I.D. card, wifi Digital library fees to the tune of Rs.1,54,350/- since there is no bifurcation / break up particulars fee is given by the opposite parties for the food and hostel amenities it is very difficult for the forum to decide upon the quantum  amount utilized by the institution for 3 days stay.  Hence it directed to deduct Rs.1,000/- per day totaling Rs.3,000/- for hostel rent, food and accommodation and processing fee of Rs.1000/- as per directives of AICTE.   It is crystal clear from Ex.A1 that the amount paid by the complainant Rs.36,000/- is the tuition fee paid for the entire year.  Since the student, the complainant’s daughter is discontinuing the course on her personal reason the said amount taken by the institution is not refundable to the complainant will  be justifiable accordingly can be forfeited by the opposite party.   But the most of the facilities mentioned for which the amount has been collected under Ex.A2 were not utilized by the candidate / and not spent by the institution on the event of her discontinuation of the course.  Therefore we are of the considered  view that out of the said amount of Rs.1,54,350/- the opposite parties can deduct a sum of Rs.4,000/- as mentioned above.   Therefore the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of  Rs.1,50,350/- reasonable amount to the complainant.  However despite of the oral promise made by the opposite parties and several demands made by the complainant the said amount is not refunded in time.   Hence we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,50,350/-  with interest at 9% p.a. from the date student left the college i.e .13.8.2015 and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation for sufferings of mental agony  and  also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.   Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered.

 In the result the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,50,350/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand three hundred and fifty only)  with interest at the rate of  9% p.a. from 13.8.2015 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation,  to pay  a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order, failing  which  the above said  compensation amount shall also carry  interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

               Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  26^th   day  of  September  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 3.8.2015    -  Copy of TMB Bank receipt

Ex.A2- 3.8.2015    - Copy of TMB Bank Receipt.

Ex.A3- 7.11.2015  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4- 14.11.2015         - Copy of notice received by 2^nd opposite party. 

Ex.A5- 17.11.2008         - Copy of Notice received by 1^st opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- 

 

 

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of Availability of total strength of opposite parties’

                             college.

Ex.B2-         -       - Copy of Class record.

 

Ex.B3-         -       - Copy of attendance record. 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.