CC Filed on 22.02.2010
Disposed on 06.04.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 06th day of April 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 24/2010
Between:
Dr. P.A. Jyothi, D/o. Late Anjaneyareddy, # 53, Opp. Ramaiah Floor Mill, Keelukote, Kolar – 563 101. (By Advocate Sri. R. Raghupathi Gowda ) V/S 1. The Principal, V.S.DentalCollege and Hospital, K.R. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore – 560 004. 2. The President, Vokkaliga Sangha, V.S.DentalCollege and Hospital, K.R. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore – 560 004. 3. The General Secretary, Vokkaliga sangha, V.S.DentalCollege and Hospital, | ….Complainant |
K.R. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore – 560 004. 4. The Chairman, V.S.DentalCollege, V.V. Puram, Bangalore – 560 004. (By Advocate Sri. M. Narayana Reddy & others) | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to refund Rs.4,89,380/- collected towards excess tuition fee for the academic years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 with interest at 13% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization with costs etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant was selected for M.D.S Prosthodontics course through COMED-K for the academic year 2006-07 in V.S. Dental College and Hospital (OP.1), on payment of Rs.1,15,000/- towards tuition fee for the first year course. It is alleged that during the academic year 2006-07 the OP.1 college collected excess fee amount of Rs.1,73,506/- stating that the said excess amount was being collected subject to the decision of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court. It is alleged that in the same way for the second and third academic years the OP.1 college has collected course fee of Rs.2,72,910/- each year in excess of the tuition fee fixed at Rs.1,15,500/-. It is made out from the documents and the pleadings of complainant that the Fee Fixation Committee had fixed Rs.1,15,500/- towards course fee for M.D.S Clinical Course for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is contended that after disposal of the several Writ Petitions disposed of on 09.11.2009 by the Hon’ble Justice. V. Gopal Gowda and Hon’ble Justice. N. Anand the OPs were bound to refund the excess course fee collected from complainant and inspite of repeated requests they failed to refund the excess fee collected by them. Therefore the present complaint is filed.
3. The OPs appeared through Counsel inspite of repeated adjournments they have not filed any version. However one document is filed on behalf of the OPs. This document relates to an order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions filed against certain contempt proceedings relating to the refund of excess fee pending on the file of our Hon’ble High Court. The operative portion of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as follows:
“UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
List in August, 2010.
Pending contempt petitions are stayed till then.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-College submitted that certificates will be issued to the students.”
4. Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence with copy of order passed in W.P. No. 5655/06 etc., disposed of on 09.11.2009. The OPs have not led any evidence. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved deficiency
in service on the part of OPs?
Point No.2: If point no.1 is held in affirmative to which reliefs
the complainant is entitled?
Point No.3: To what order?
6. After considering the records and the submissions of the parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: The complainant completed her MDS course during academic years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 in V.S.DentalCollege and Hospital, K.R. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore – OP.1. The management of OP.1 college has collected on different dates the tuition fees for different academic years as follows:
1. First academic year - on 10.04.2006 Rs.1,15,000/-
23.05.2006 Rs.54,560/-
13.05.2006 Rs.1,19,000/-
Total Rs.2,88,560/-
2. Second academic year - on 15.02.2009 Rs.2,72,910/-
3. Third academic year – on 16.03.2009 Rs.2,72,910/-
Though the OPs have appeared through Advocate they have not filed any version disclosing their defence. OPs have filed a copy of stay order granted for a limited period by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against some pending contempt petitions arising out of the decision in Writ Petition Nos. 5655/2006 C/W other matters, on the file of our Hon’ble High Court. We think the said stay order does not stay the operation of the order passed in W.P. No. 5655/2006. Therefore we think the said stay order produced by OPs does not help them in any way in this case. The complainant has filed the copy of the order dated 09.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 5655/2006 C/W other matters.
The complainant has not produced the copy of Justice. H. Rangavittallachar Committee fixing the fees for various courses, but she has produced a schedule stated to be the part of the report of said Committee relating to V.S. Dental College & Hospital, Bangalore showing that the fee fixed was Rs.1,15,500/- for clinical and Rs.38,500/- for para-clinical MDS courses for the academic years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The complainant has produced gazette copy of The Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006.
In Writ Petition Nos. 5655/2006 C/W other matters Point Nos.3 to 6 framed for determination are as follows:
“3. Whether the petitioner students are liable to pay the fee fixed by various managements in excess of fee fixed by the committee and notified by the State Government?
4. Whether the managements of private Educational institutions can collect the fee in excess of fee fixed by the committee to various professional courses, namely medical, dental, post-graduation and other diploma courses after expiry of three years fixed in the notification in the absence of revision of fee structure sought by them either before the Committee or State Government?
5. Whether the consensual agreement entered into between the State Government and the Educational institutions is legal and valid in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Islamic Academy case, which has been reaffirmed by the 7 Judges Bench Judgment in P.A. Inamdar’s case?
6. Whether the students are entitled for downward revision of fee?
After going through the Judgement 5655/2006 C/W other maters it appears to us that point Nos.4 and 5 is relevant for disposing the controversy involved in the present case because in the present case, the complainant has completed MDS course during the academic years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. It appears in respect of the students admitted during 2006-07 there was no revision of tuition fee at the instance of management of colleges. Therefore we have to consider, the tuition fee that can be legally collected by the management in the absence of revision of tuition fee subsequent to the fee fixed by Justice. H. Rangavittalachar Committee. We think that point is answered in point No.4 and point No.5 of the above said Writ Petition. The relevant discussion regarding these points is made in para.74 and para. 76 of the said decision which are as follows:
“Para. 74. Further, the fee fixed is for the aforesaid three academic years and the same could have been sought for review by the Educational Institutions as held by the Apex Court in Islamic Academy which is extracted here under.
“The committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the committee shall be biding for a period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for revision. Once fees are fixed by the committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is charged, under any other head or guise e.g. donations, the same would amount to charging of capitation fee.”
That has not been done by them. Therefore, the same fee shall be collected from the students for the different professional courses referred to supra.”
76. Matters pertaining to the academic year 2007-2008
The Supreme Court in WP(C) 378/2004 accepting I.A.. 10 has given effect to the consensual agreement arrived by the State of Karnataka and Karnataka Private Medical and Dental College Association and has held that the parties are permitted to workout the same by way of interim arrangement during the pendency of W.P.(C). 378/2004. It is held that the order on I.A. 10 will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition and without prejudicial rights of the parties therein. Therefore such Writ Petitioners cannot contend that the fee for the academic year 2007-2008 shall be collected as fixed by the committee. The petitioners will have to agitate their rights in WP(C) 378/2004 pending before the Supreme Court or they have to reagitate the matter after finalization is rendered in W.P. No. 378/2004.”
W.P. No. 5655/2006 was filed challenging the fixation of fee by Justic. H. Rangavittalachar Committee. The Government had already accepted the report of the said Committee. The Committee had fixed the tuition fees payable for the academic years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The fixation of tuition fees was binding for three years i.e. up to 2006-07. In the present case, the complainant was admitted to OP.1 institution during the academic year 2006-07. Therefore we think for the year 2006-07 the fee fixed by the said Committee is binding on the management of OP.1 college. It is alleged that OP.1 had totally collected Rs.2,86,560/- towards the tuition fee for the year 2006-07. It appears the Committee had fixed Rs.1,15,000/- towards the tuition fee for MDS course in OP.1 Institution. Therefore we think the OPs could have collected from complainant only Rs.1,15,000/- towards tuition fees for the academic year 2006-07.
Para. 76 of the judgement in Writ Petition No. 5655/2006 states that there was some interim arrangement with the consent of Supreme Court between State of Karnataka and Karnataka Private Medical and Dental College Association and the said arrangement is binding till the final disposal of Writ Petition No. 378/2004 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not made out by complainant that the tuition fee collected for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 is in contravention of the interim arrangement arrived in W.P. No. 378/2004. Therefore we think the complainant may agitate her rights after finalization of W.P. No. 378/2004 pending on the file of Supreme Court. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 partly in Affirmative.
Point No.2: In view of the finding on point No. 1, the OPs have to refund Rs.1,73,560/- (Rs.2,88,560/- minus Rs.1,15,000/-). The complainant had requested for refund of the excess fee collected after disposal of W.P. 5655/2006. But the OPs did not respond for that request. In such circumstance we think payment of interest to complainant at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment on the excess amount collected may be ordered. Hence point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs shall refund Rs.1,73,560/- (rupees one lakh seventy three thousand and five hundred sixty only) along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e. 22.02.2010) till the date of payment to the complainant, within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
The complainant is at liberty to reagitate her claim for refund of alleged excess tuition fee for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 after finalization of W.P (C) 378/2004 pending on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 06th day of April 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
