Date of Filing : 19.09.2011
Date of Order : 03.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 3rd APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 196 / 2011
Sri. K. Pradeep Karade.K.,
S/o. Krishnoji Rao.C., Aged about 20 years,
II Year B.E. Student,
R/o. No. 61, Civil Police Quarters, Gulpet,
Kolar.
(By Sri. M.P. Narayanaswamy, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Principal,
Dr. T. Thimmaiah Institute of Technology,
K.G.F.
(By Sri. P. Raghavan, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the Ops to pay to the Complainant Rs.70,000/- are necessary:
Complainant after passing PUC in the year 2010 has appeared for CET examination for higher studies. Before announcing the CET results, he approached OP for admission in the I year BE in Mechanical Engineering and paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.04.2010 under the management quota to the OP. After CET counseling, he joined C. Bhyregowda College at Kolar. He requested the OP to refund the amount, since he has not joined that College nor attended the College. OP went on postponing the payment. On 31.12.2010 it paid Rs.25,000/- and on 27.07.2011 it paid another sum of Rs.25,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- has not been paid. This is deficiency in service. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief version of the Ops are:-
Complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/-, in the management quota and he has been given admission for the academic year of 2010-11. There is no deficiency in service. There is good demand for Engineering course. Having given the seat to the Complainant OP was unable to admit any other students in his place and it became vacant. The father of the Complainant is Police personnel who along with Deputy Superintendent of Police met the persons at the helm affairs and persuaded them and accordingly the management has given Rs.25,000/- by Cheque on 31.12.2010. When the Silver Jubilee function was announced, the father of the Complainant and his henchmen came near the College and created confusion and chaos and the press meet was disrupted and hence to tide over situation courteous payment of Rs.25,000/ was made on 21.07.2011. There is no deficiency in service. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed their respective affidavits. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What Order ?
5. Our finding are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit, and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had taken CET examinations conducted by CET Cell and before the results were announced, Complainant contacted OP and in the management quota OP has assured him a seat. Accordingly, Complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to which OP has not issued any Receipt to the Complainant acknowledging the payment of the said amount. This is very much important to note. When any Institution receives money that too an Academic Institution, it has to acknowledge it and issue Receipts. But, OP has not issued any Receipt for the reasons best known to it.
7. Further it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had passed in CET Cell and in the CET Counseling he was given free seat in C. Bhyregowda College, Kolar and he has taken his admission there and he has joined that College. As such, he demanded his money back as he did not join OP. OP has contended that he was given seat and hence it has allotted the seat in the management quota. OP admitted that there was heavy demand for the Engineering Course. When that is the case, on what date OP allotted seat to the Complainant? when the Complainant demanded for money? how many students were there in the College by that time? how many students were there in I year BE? and how many seats that the College had and how many seats became vacant because of non joining of the Complainant is not at all stated. It means even before admission to the College Complainant got admitted through CET Cell and joined another College. Hence, he demanded money as rightly contended.
8. When the OP has not given any seat, in the sense, there is no allotment order of the seat in the College in favour of the Complainant, it should have returned the money to the Complainant. As it has not returned, it is deficiency in service.
9. In this case, it is very much important to note that the father of the Complainant is a Police Head Constable and according to OP, Head Constable along with Deputy Superintendent of Police had come and demanded the money, then they returned only Rs.25,000/-. If the Complainant’s father were not to be in the Police Department, the OP would have declined to pay any money stating that the Complainant had not paid any money since it has not issued any receipt for Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. Further it is also contended by the Learned Counsel for the OP that during the course of Silver Jubilee function complainant’s father came and disrupted the press meet, courteous payment of Rs.25,000/- was made. Here also it means if the Complainant’s father were not to be in the Police Department, OP would not have paid even this Rs.25,000/- also. If at all there were to be a loss to the OP or if at all seat of the Complainant were to be vacant, naturally in the press meet OP would have stated this fact and convinced the press people and would not have paid the money. This allegation of OP clearly proves that OP has humiliated and swallowed the money and not paid the money to the Complainant back. This is nothing but deficiency in service.
11. The Learned Counsel for the OP cited unreported judgement between BGS International School & another and Shri. Stephen.C. in Appeal No. 1151/2003 dtd. 05.07.2005 of the Hon’ble State Commission. There is no dispute with respect to the said judgement of Hon’ble State Commission. The facts & circumstances of that case and the facts & circumstances of this case are totally different and the principles stated therein is not applicable to the facts & circumstances of this case.
12. In this case, there is no document to show that the seat has been allotted by the OP in the management quote to the Complainant and it was kept vacant subsequent to the cancellation made by the Complainant. There is no proof to show that OP had any waiting list prepared. If any waiting list has bee prepared, naturally OP would have got another student to its College. In this case, even before the commencement of the academic year complainant had got admitted to another College and sought refund of the money. So, no prejudice has been caused to the OP, no expenditure has been caused to the OP in refunding the whole amount. But, it took pressure to refund the money that too in part. If the policy of the OP is not to refund the money, it would have not refunded any amount. OP unjustly enriching at the cost of the Complainant which is impermissible under Law. Hence we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 12% P.A. from 02.03.2010 until payment to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
5. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
