Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

221/2008

D.Anandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal, Women's Christian college - Opp.Party(s)

A.Palaniappan

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 09.06.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, 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

CC. NO.221 /2008

WEDNESDAY THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2018

                                             

M/s. D.Anandhi,

D/o. V.Dhayalu,

No.140, Krishna Square,

TPTC Quarters,

Villupuram, 409.                                                .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Principal,

Women’s Christian College,

College Road, Chennai – 6.                             ..  Opposite party

 

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s.A. Palaniappan    

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. T.Mohan & S.Devika

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to refund a sum of Rs.81,065/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that  after completion of her bachelors decree, attracted by the salient features of the opposite party, the complainant joined the course of M.Sc., Bio Technology on 18.8.2006 and paid a sum of Rs.81,065/-.   At the time of admission the complainant owing to her health condition and the stress of completing admission formalities only on 21.8.2006 signed all the documents.   Due to the complainant’s ailment she could not  attend classes regularly and she had expressed her inability to attend the classes and complete the course.   On 29.8.2006 the complainant submitted a written request to the opposite party discontinuing the course and to refund the fees paid.   The complainant was constrained to issue legal notice  dated 8.2.2008  for which the opposite party sent a reply in a vague manner.  As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.  

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party state that the complaint is not maintainable as a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that educational institutions do not come within the purview of the Consumer  Protection Act 1986.    The opposite party denies that they had procured the complainant’s signature on various printed sheets the contents of which are not known to the complainant.   The complainant herself admits that she had signed on printed sheets and had therefore agreed to the terms and conditions of the admission.    The opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant owing to her health condition and the stress of completing the admission formalities as 21.8.2006 was the last day signed all the documents as required by the opposite party and procured admission.   The opposite party has never undertaken to repay the course fee.   The prospectus for the course also clearly mentions in bold letters that fees once paid would not be refunded.  The complainant who has agreed to the terms and conditions of the admission cannot claim refund of the fees after discontinuing the course midway.   The opposite party denies that the complainant  was permitted to withdraw from the course and was promised refund of the course fee at the earliest but despite repeated requests and personal visits the course fee was not refunded as promised.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no document  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.81,065/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. paid towards fees as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to  a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service as prayed for?

5.   POINTS: 1 & 2 :

        The opposite party filed written arguments.   Heard the complainant counsel.   Perused the records (viz.) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.    The complainant pleaded and contended that after completion of her bachelors decree attracted by the salient features of the opposite party the complainant joined the course of M.Sc., Bio Technology on 18.8.2006 and paid a sum of Rs.81,065/- as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.   Further the contention of the complainant is that at the time of admission the complainant owing to her health condition and the stress of completing admission formalities  only on 21.8.2006 and signed all the documents.  The complainant further contended that  due to the complainant’s ailment she could not attend classes regularly and she had expressed her inability to attend the classes and complete the course.   On 29.8.2006 the complainant submitted a written request to the opposite party of discontinuing the course and to refund the fees paid.  But the complainant  has not produced any such document.   Since the opposite party has not refunded the fees, again the complainant sent another letter dated 23.1.2007 Ex.A4 requesting to refund the amount.   Since the opposite party has not refunded the amount, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice  dated 8.2.2008 Ex.A5 for which the opposite party sent a reply in a vague manner.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.81065/- with compensation.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that  the complainant filed this case against the principal of Women Christian College, Chennai who is an employee of Women Christian College.  The complainant ought to have been filed the case against the educational institution duly represented by the authorized person.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that educational institutions do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   In this case admittedly the complainant applied for admission to M.Sc Bio Technology course and after due scrutiny was granted admission as per Ex.A1 letter and the complainant remitted the courts fee of Rs.81,065/- on 21.8.2006.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant after going through the various terms and conditions and the prospectus singed the same; but without the knowledge of the complainant  is false and never arise.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of ailment resulting the request for discontinuation of the course and withdrawing from the course; has not been proved by the documents in this case.   The complainant also has not stated anything about her ill-health in specific manner.   The complainant after joined the course had attended the class till 31.8.2006.   The complainant informed the opposite party on 21.3.2007 to discontinue the course and claimed to refund the fees after knowing fully well and executed undertaking that the fees once paid shall not be refunded.  The prospectus is also very clear to that effect; discontinuing the course mid-way and claiming refund of fees paid for the course would not be refunded.   But the law is well settled that students are consumer and the college fees paid may be refunded. 

        Civil Appeal Nos.7003-7004 of 2015

(Special Leave to Appeal © No.(s). 2523-2524/2003)

P. Sreenivasulu & Anr

.Vs..

P.J. Alexander & Anr.

Held that

The National Commission preferred to rely on the decision of the Madras High Court rather than its earlier decision rendered in Bhupesh Khurana (Supra).

It has been brought to our notice that an appeal was filed against the order of the National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana and the decision in the appeal is reported as Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurans & Ors. [ (2009) 4 SCC 473].   The view expressed by the National Commission was upheld by this Court in the aforesaid decision.

Under the circumstances, an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the decision rendered by the Madras High Court would no longer be good law.  Under the circumstances, we hold that the complaint filed before the State Commission was maintainable.

Accordingly we set aside the judgment and order dated 12.9.2002 passed by the National Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission for its decision on merits.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the  opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.81,065/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 9.6.2008 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 7.3.2018 and also shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.81,065/- (Rupees Eighty one thousand and sixty five only)  with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 9.6.2008 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 7.3.2018 and also shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 7^th  day of March 2018. 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1 – 18.8.2006 – Copy of Admission Notice issued by opposite party.

Ex.A2-  21.8.2006 – Copy of receipt issued by the IOB for Rs.80,585/-

Ex.A3-            -  Copy of receipt issued by the IOB for Rs.480/-

Ex.A4- 23.1.2007 -  Copy of letter issued by the complainant.

Ex.A5- 8.2.2008  -  Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant.

Ex.A6-            -  Copy of Ack. Cards.

Ex.A7- 25.2.2008  - Copy of reply sent by the 1^st opp. party.

       

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:   .. Nill..

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.