The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-

 

            The complainant joined the Diploma Course in Pharmacy conducted by the opposite party institution on 07/11/2006. At the time of availing admission at opposite party’s institution, the complainant submitted at the opposite party’s office, (i) the original of her S.S.L.C mark list (ii) original of the plus two school mark list (iii) transfer certificate and the conduct certificate. The complainant had also remitted the annual fees of Rs. 18,500/- and hostel fees Rs. 4000/-. The complainant studied in the opposite party’s institution only for a week and had discontinued from the course on getting information that the said D.Pharm Course was not recognized and accredited worldwide. The hostel facilities provided by the opposite party were not as had been assured in the prospectus and newspaper advertisement. The complainant was compelled to reside in the staff and worker’s hostel and not in an exclusive student’s hostel. When the complainant complained about the inadequacy of accommodations at opposite party’s office, hostile attitude was shown to the complainant.

            On discontinuing the course, the complainant requested several times for the return of educational certificates, but the opposite party demanded an additional amount of eighteen thousand rupees, towards the second year course fee for which the complainant had never studied. The complainant alleged that by retaining the educational certificates the opposite parties incapacitated the complainant from pursuing higher education. Cause of action for the complaint had arisen on 31/3/08, the due date of the course and subsequently when the demand for documents were made at Thellakom. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite party(i) to return the educational certificates (ii) to allow the complainant to recover Rs.22,500/- from the opposite party’s assets (iii) to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and to pay the litigation cost.

            The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions

i)                    The complaint is barred by limitation.

ii)                   The complainant discontinued her studies from 12-11-2006 onwards and demanded return of fees on 12-11-2006.

iii)                 The approved prospectus of Caritas College of Pharmacy clause 10.4 clearly stipulated that discontinuation from the course at any time after allotment of admission, the candidate is liable to pay full fees for the entire course of study

iv)                 Due to latches of the complainant, another student who ought to have got admission in the course has lost her opportunity to study

v)                  The allegation that a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid towards hostel fees is false. In fact the complainant paid only Rs.1950/- towards hostel fee and a sum of Rs.1700/- was refunded to the complainant.

vi)                 After closing admission, as per the rules and regulations issued by the authorities, the opposite parties are not permitted to admit any student even if a vacancy arises after the period stipulated for admission. Being a self financing college, the seats allotted to the college is fixed and fee structure was provided considering the expenses incurred by the institution for providing education to entire course of study

vii)               The allegation that the hostel facility provided by the opposite parties is not as assured in the prospectus is false. Further allegation that the opposite parties and staff misbehaved is false

viii)              After receipt of the educational certificates from student it is mandatory that all educational certificates received from the students shall be send to the concerned authorities for verification. Educational certificates collected from the complainant were handed over for verification to the authority concerned. Since the educational certificates were not available with the opposite parties it is not possible to hand over the same if demanded by a student during the course of study. The opposite party never retained, the educational certificates illegally.

ix)                 As per clause 10.4 of the prospectus, the complainant is bound to remit the entire course fee even if the complainant discontinue with the course.

According to the opposite parties there is no negligence or deficiency in service

 from the part of the opposite parties and hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

Points for consideration are:-

 i) whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of

    opposite parties?

            ii) Reliefs and costs?

            Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties, exhibits A1 to A3, exts B1 to B7         and depositions of PW1 & DW1.

            Heard the counsels for both parties and perused the documents placed on record. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complaint is barred by limitation since it was filed after a period of limitation prescribed under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. But according to the complainant, the cause of action of the complainant had arisen on 31/03/2008, the due date of completion of the course and subsequently when the demand for documents were made at Thellakom. The complainant deposed that she demanded course certificates and course fee back several times but the opposite parties insisted for the remittance of the second year fee also for returning the fees an d certificates. The complainant further deposed that the opposite parties agreed to return the certificates in 2008, that is after the course period. As the certificates were retained by the opposite parties for want of completion of the course, there is continuing cause of action. In normal course no person will be having mental peace if her original SSLC book and plus two marklist are under the custody of an educational institution where she is not studying at all. In our view the unwillingness on the part of the opposite parties to return the said documents before the completion of the course might have compelled the complainant to wait up to the end of the course period. As the certificates were not returned, there is continuing cause of action and the complaint is maintainable.

            The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant agreed to pay the prescribed fee for the entire course and executed a bond with the opposite parties accepting the terms and conditions of the prospectus issued by the opposite parties. The original declaration was produced and was marked as ext B7. On perusing ext B7, it is understood that the complainant agreed to abide all the rules and regulations for the due maintance of the discipline. Ext.B7 mentions nothing about the remittance of the fees. The learned counsel further argued that the candidate is liable to pay full fees as per clause 10.4 of the prospectus. Evidencing the aforesaid argument, the prospectus was produced and was marked as ext B1. Even though such a clause is present in the prospectus it is not signed by the complainant.

            The opposite parties averred that the complainant got refund of  hostel fees on

 12-11-2006. It was next averred that the complainant demanded return of fees on 12-11-2006. It was again averred that the complainant discontinued her studies from 12-11-06 onwards. From the aforementioned averments, it is clear that the opposite parties knew about the complainant’s discontinuation from the Diploma Course in Pharmacy. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant had not given a written information to the opposite parties regarding their discontinuance from the course. But a written information is not mandated as per any of the materials placed on record. As argued by the opposite parties, if they were ignorant about the complainant’s withdrawal from the said course, why they have not enquired about the complainant’s prolonged absence. After receiving Rs.18,500/- as the tution fee for one year, if the opposite parties are not bothered about the presence or absence of student in the class, and if they are not informing about the absence to the student’s guardian, then that itself is a clear proof of deficiency in service committed by them. The opposite parties produced the copy of the letter issued to Directorate of Medical education along with the list of 1^st year D.Pharm students and is marked as ext B3. From Ext B3 it is surprising to see that the student who discontinued from the D.Pharm course of 2006-2008 and received hostel fee refund on

 12-11-2006 was included in the list of students sent to the Directorate of Medical education on 23/02/07. Without making sure whether the complainant want to continue the course or not, the original certificates of the complainant were sent for verification after three months of her withdrawal from the course. The act of opposities in withholding the original certificates of a student and thus spoiling her career is quite unfair and is not allowable.

            The next argument raised by the counsel for opposite parties was that only limited number of students were allowed to get admission and after closing admission, the opposite parties are not permitted to admit student as per the rules and regulations issued by the authorities. According to opposite parties’ learned counsel due to the withdrawal of the complainant, the college lost the second year fees and another student lost the opportunity to study in a reputed institution. Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties ought to have maintained a waiting list of students and if such a list was maintained they could have admitted one of the wait listed candidates against the complainant’s seat. We also concede with the argument of complainant’s counsel. The learned counsel for the complainant quoted the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Seghal School of competition Vs. Dalbir Singh 111(2009) CPJ 33(NC), where in it is held that as per public notice issued by U.G.C, all institutes are directed to refund money of students for period, college/institution not attended.

            In Nipum Nagar V.Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I(2209) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision petition No.1336 of 2008, decided by National Commission on 7^th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of 1 lakh even after the student withdraw from their institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee say Rs.1000/-.

            In this case also, as the total number of seats for the course in D.Pharm 1st year is 60, they ought to have maintained a waiting list which they have not done. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institution. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. In this instant case, the complainant withdrew from the course on the third day itself. So the opposite party was unfair and unjust in retaining the certificates and tuition fee of first year. It is not in dispute that the first year tuition fee of Rs.18,500/- was paid by the complainant. The opposite parties averred that the hostel fee was refunded on 12-11-2006. Even though the complainant deposed that no amount was refunded, there is nothing on record to show the remittance of hostel fee Rs.4000/-. so the said claim is not allowable. Relying on the aforesaid judgements we hold the opposite parties deficient in their service and unfair in their acts. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

            The complainant filed an IA for getting the certificates back. As per the forum’s direction in the said IA, the opposite parties produced the certificates before the forum and the complainant received those certificates.

            In the result the complaint is ordered as follows.

            The opposite parties will refund the first year fee of Rs. 18,500/- after a deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1000/- to the complainant alongwith a compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

Ext.A1-Original certificate issued by the opposite party dtd 7-11-06

Ext.A2-Office copy of the Advocate’s notice dtd 09/01/09

Ext.A3-Office copy of the advocate’s notice dtd 21/01/09

Ext.B1-Prospectus of Caritas College

Ext.B2-Copy of approved prospectus issued by DME Govt.of Kerala

Ext.B3-Office copy of letter and details of students list send to DME

Ext.B4-Original Registration card of petitioner

Ext.B5-Original letter issued to the opposite party

Ext.B6-Original bio-data

Ext.B7-Original declaration form