| Final Order / Judgement | IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM C.C.No. 17/2019 PRESENT SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER ORDER DATED: 25 .11.2024 BETWEEN Dr.Nizar Hussain M., Puthen vila veedu, Pullichira P.O., Kollam 691304 : Complainant AND The Principal, MES Institute of Technology and Management, Chathannoor, Kollam 691571. : Opposite party (By Adv.Chirakkarathazham S.Sureshkumar) ORDER S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT - The case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant’s son Amjad Khan N. was admitted to first year B. Tech in 2017-18 batch in Mechanical Engineering branch of MES Institute of Technology and Management, Chathannoor, Kollam, as per the undertaking. The first-year fee agreed was fully paid. He applied for transfer as per Kerala Technology University (KTU) proceedings. He has approached the college authorities for signing the proforma. College authorities demanded subsequent year fees and complainant was forced to give an undertaking on 27.06.2018 for getting the documents. Later complainant’s son personally handed over a request dated 03.07.2018 to the authorities at the college to waive the complainant from paying the subsequent year fees. He was told that there will be management meeting on 04.07.2018. Complainant’s son has reported at the college after completing initial formalities at the transferee college on 16.07.2018 for getting documents and the college authorities demanded to pay one-year subsequent year fee and was told to come on 17.07.2018. When he went to the college on 17.07.2018 with one-year subsequent year fee, college authorities strike off this and demanded half of the 3 subsequent years’ fee. Complainant was not with him during this time. When the college authorities started mentally torturing complainant’s son and tried to deny the transfer by delaying the documents/demanding illegal subsequent years fee, he contacted the complainant and conveyed the matter. Complainant was forced to send mail to KTU/Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC). Complainant interfered in the matter in warranting circumstances as a duty of any responsible parent. Complainant’s son has cleared all the dues from laboratory, library, workshop etc. Since they failed to get any reply from the concerned authority/last date for submitting documents at the transferee college, again forced to make the subsequent years fee of Rs.52,500/- . Later Admission Supervisory Committee rejected the claim for refund stating violation of undertaking. That there is no violation of undertaking. There was no concession in fees from the agreed fee structure at the time of admission nor any first year fee due and hence no violation of undertaking.
- That the Complainant’s son obtained full pass in first attempt itself in university exams as he studied well. The college intention was to mislead the ASC, by providing false statements and allegations without even providing the copy of the same to complainant and also submitting documents after the hearing adjourned for orders. From this the intention/hidden agenda of the college authority is very clear ie; denying the transfer by demanding illegal subsequent years fee and collect the same from the students and treat this into other means of illegal fees and utilize for their benefit. Accepting the prospectus after the hearing adjourned for orders and making decisions based on this is against the natural justice. The above order/decision made by the ASC is also based on the statement that complainant was a faculty at the above College. This was an error on face of the record. Complainant was never a faculty at the above College. College authorities mislead the ASC by providing false and inconsistent fee statements without any evidence and illegal acts and defame the persons. The evidences proving collection of illegal subsequent years fee were also not considered. That the opposite party has illegally demanded/collected the 3 subsequent years fee at the time of cancelling the admission in one institution and approved/legal transfer as per university proceedings. That when the collected fees found illegal, treating the same as other means of fees not suggested/agreed at the time of admission which is illegal as per AICTE handbook. The college has charged a fee for the service not given. Hence this complaint for refund of the entire excess fee collected (Rs.52500) along with compensation and costs.
- The opposite party has filed their version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is not maintainable. That the complainant’s son was admitted in the college not on merit of the student but on management quota on 24.07.2017. After Securing admission in the management quota, the complainant began to bargain for fees to be paid to the institution. The complaint is a person well known to the senior faculties and management team of the college. Since all of them were colleagues in the TKM College Of Engineering and Technology, taking advantage of the said acquaintance, the complainant bargained to the maximum, and hence for getting all norms by giving special consideration, the student was granted fee concession up to Rs 75,000 for the first year. That as per the agreement between the management and the government, the fee shall be up to 1 lakh for management quota and Rs 1,50,000 for NRI quota. The fee fixed by the respondent for the management quota seat in mechanical engineering during the year 2017-18 was Rs. 85,000 plus the special fee of Rs. 25,000 which is also fixed, as per the agreement with the government. So, the total fee to be paid for the complainant’s son is Rs.1,10,000. But due to the influence of the complainant, the student was given concession up to Rs. 75,000 and was asked to remit only Rs.35,000 for the first year. This concession was given on a condition that the student has to complete his studies in the same college itself, and also that he has to secure pass mark in all subjects in his first attempt. That before the declaration of result in the second semester, the complainant’s son applied for Inter college transfer for taking admission in Sree Chithra College of Engineering, which is managed by the government. That, transfer to the government college from management college after securing admission in the management quota is against rules prevailing. But the complainant using his influence has managed to obtain a seat for his son in government college through Inter college transfer that too by obtaining management quota seat in Management College. So, the intention of the complaint was utilizing the opposite party college as a medium for securing seat in a government college. Complainant being a faculty in TKM College of Engineering for a long time, knows about the difficulties that the management may face in the event of giving transfer to students after completion of one or two semesters. That it is unethical and is against the undertaking taken by the complainant and his son to the management of the opposite party due to the said transfer. The complainant’s son has caused loss of one seat in the opposite party college for one eligible student. The present complaint is also one of the unethical thoughts of the complainant to take away all money spent by him for the career of his son. The complainant, after remitting the fees as required, has secured admission in the government college and then opted to file petitions, one after another, against the opposite party raising untenable conditions. The opposite party, has not collected any amount from the son of the complainant illegally. The matter pertaining to this case were very elaborately considered and discussed before the supervisory committee and a considered order was passed dismissing the complaint. That order was not challenged anywhere, and it has attained finality Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
- The complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P11. Opposite party had no oral evidence. Exhibits D1 to D4 were marked on the part of the opposite party. Exhibits P4, P5, P7 to P9 were marked subject to proof, which have not been made absolute.
- The issues for consideration are
- Whether the complainant is a consumer and whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which has been already decided by the Admission Supervisory Committee.
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
- POINT NO.1: The opposite party contends that the reliefs sought by the complainant have already been adjudicated by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala, chaired by Justice R.R. Rajendra Babu. The complainant raised the same allegations before the said authority, which were rejected. Subsequent review petitions filed by the complainant were also dismissed. The Committee, in its final decision, directed the complainant to approach the appropriate forum if the complainant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Committee. However, the complainant, ignoring the Committee’s findings, has approached this Hon’ble Commission by raising the same allegations. The learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the opposite party institution is not a commercial establishment. They claim that the institution is an educational entity managed by a trust operating without profit motives and that education is not a commodity to be brought under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Relying on precedents, the opposite party asserts that matters relating to admissions, fees, and issuance of transfer certificates do not fall under the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act and the learned counsel cited the following judgments: Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010): The Supreme Court held that education is not a commodity, and deficiency in service cannot arise in such matters. Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2010): The Supreme Court observed that education boards and universities are not service providers, and complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. P.T. Koshy v. Ellen Charitable Trust (2012): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that educational disputes do not fall under the jurisdiction of consumer forums. Based on these precedents also, the opposite party contends that the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission and deserves to be dismissed.
- The complainant who contested the case in person submitted that the judgments cited by the opposite party pertain to statutory functions related to education, such as examinations or academic decisions, and are unrelated to the present case of illegal collection of subsequent year fees during the issuance of transfer certificates. The complainant relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 2001 (Judgment dated 13.02.2009), which held that "imparting education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act." Fees are paid in exchange for services rendered by educational institutions, including administrative support and issuance of transfer certificates.
- It is further argued that the complainant hired the opposite party’s services for consideration, making him a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party institution’s actions of demanding and collecting excess fees beyond the agreed amount constitute a clear case of deficiency in service. That the opposite party's actions involved demanding subsequent year fees at the time of issuing the transfer certificate, which violated the fee structure agreed upon at the time of admission. This is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act and amounts to an unfair trade practice.
- The complainant relies on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in RP No. 2593 of 2016 and RP No. 2829 of 2010 (Judgment dated 09.10.2019), where it was held that excess fees collected by educational institutions must be refunded along with compensation and costs.
- The complainant emphasizes that the Admission Supervisory Committee’s observations did not preclude the complainant from approaching a forum with jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Committee directed the complainant to approach higher authorities, thereby validating the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in matters involving financial disputes or violations of natural justice. The complainant also highlights that the opposite party misled the Admission Supervisory Committee by submitting false statements, including the baseless claim that the complainant was a faculty member of the institution. This false claim influenced the Committee’s findings and caused harm to the complainant’s reputation. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7003-7004 of 2015 upheld the maintainability of complaints involving fee-related disputes filed before the Consumer Forum. The judgment rejected the argument that educational institutions are exempt from the Consumer Protection Act and clarified that fee disputes fall within the purview of the Act. The complainant further states that excess fees charged during the issuance of transfer certificates amount to unfair trade practice and are not protected under the general exemption of education from the Consumer Protection Act.
- The issue at hand involves the legality and sustainability of the reliefs claimed by the complainant, which have already been adjudicated by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala. The complainant has approached this Commission despite the existence of a competent statutory authority that has already examined and ruled on the matter. The Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala is constituted under the Kerala Self-Financing Professional Colleges Act. The Committee is empowered to regulate admissions and resolve disputes related to admissions and fees in professional colleges in Kerala.
- As per the provisions of the Act, the High Court of Kerala serves as the appellate authority for decisions made by the Admission Supervisory Committee. This means that, any party aggrieved by the Committee's decision has the option to file an appeal before the High Court, which is empowered to conduct a judicial review of the Committee’s orders. The Admission Supervisory Committee, in its capacity as a statutory authority, has already addressed the complainant's grievances regarding the matter of fees and transfer certificate (TC). The Committee has made a decision on the issue, and any appeal or challenge to that decision has to be appropriately preferred to the High Court of Kerala, as the designated appellate forum under the relevant statute. Consumer Commission, do not have jurisdiction over matters already decided by a competent statutory authority, unless the statute explicitly allows otherwise. In this case, the Kerala Self-Financing Professional Colleges Act does not confer jurisdiction upon consumer forums to entertain appeals against decisions made by the Admission Supervisory Committee.
- The decisions made by a statutory body, such as the Admission Supervisory Committee, are binding unless set aside by the High Court of Kerala upon judicial review or appeal. Given that the Committee has already decided on the legality of the complainant's claims, the appropriate course of action for the complainant, if dissatisfied with the decision, is to file an appeal before the High Court of Kerala. This is the designated appellate remedy available under the law. Since the matter has been duly considered by the competent statutory authority, and no provision in the relevant statute allows for challenges before consumer forums, the complaint filed before this Commission is not maintainable as this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
- In light of the above, the remaining points require no consideration.
- In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate legal authority for redressal of his grievances if any. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S.transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 25th day of November 2024. Sd/- S.K.SREELA PRESIDENT Sd/- STANLY HAROLD MEMBER Forwarded/by Order Senior superintendent INDEX Witness Examined for the complainant:- PW1 : Dr.Nizar Hussain Documents marked for the complainant: Ext.P1 : True opy of undertaking dated 24.07.2017 Ext.P2 :Copy of the fee Receipt dated 25.07.2017 Ext.P3 :Copy of the fee Receipt dated 11.09.2017 Ext.P4 : Copy of the representation dated 03.07.2018 Ext.P5 : The copy of the adjusting caution deposit Rs.10,000/- and collection of Rs. 52500/- Ext.P6 : True copy of the receipt dated 17.07.2018 Ext.P7 : Copy of the semester 1 Grade Card Ext.P8 : Copy of the semester 2 Grade Card Ext.P9 : Copy of the relevant portion of AICTE handbook refund clause/case Ext.P10: Authorisation Ext.P11: Refund of Tuition fee Witness Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil Documents marked for opposite parties:- Ext.D1 : Photograph of MES Engineering College Ext.D2 : Order of Admission Supervisory Committee Ext.D3 : Review petition Ext.D4 : Second review petition Sd/- PRESIDENT | |
