Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.50,000/- paid as advance to the opposite parties towards admission of his daughter into Pharma-D course in their college; Rs.12,000/- being the interest @24% p.a., from 29-07-11 to 23-07-12; Rs.20,000/- as damages for deficiency of service; Rs.5,000/- as expenses and Rs.1,000/- as cost of notice.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 29-07-11 to the opposite parties as advance in order to join his daughter Thalluri Dhanya Evangelin into Pharma-D course commencing from 2011-2012.   The opposite parties agreed to allot a seat under management quota with a mutual understanding of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in 1^st year and Rs.1,25,000/- each for subsequent years.   The opposite parties also agreed to return the said amount along with certificates if the complainant’s daughter gets a seat in EAMCET counseling.  Complainant’s daughter got a seat in Pharma-D course through EAMCET counsel in Chebrolu Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guntur.  The complainant on many occasion requested the defendant to return the amount and original certificates.   The opposite parties issued original certificates promising to return the said amount within a short period.   The opposite parties did not keep their promise.  The opposite parties though received notice neither gave reply nor returned the amount.   The opposite parties keeping the amount of Rs.50,000/- with them under the above circumstances amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite parties in nutshell is hereunder:

        The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for joining his daughter in Pharm-D course.  The tuition fees for six year programme is Rs.9,30,000/- and special fees for six years is Rs.18,000/-.   The complainant after knowing the fees structure for pharm-D course satisfied and gave his consent to join his daughter in the said course.   Subsequently, the complainant came to the institution and paid Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,55,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for 1^st year.   At that time the complainant requested time to pay remaining amount for the 1^st year stating that he will submit the original certificates to the institution at a later date along with the remaining amount.  As such a seat for pharm-D course was allotted to complainant’s daughter.   The complainant subsequently did not turn up and did not make any correspondence with the institution.   The complainant thus failed to pay the 1^st year fees in full and submit original certificates.   The opposite parties surprised to receive a notice from the complainant with false allegations.   The 1^st opposite party on phone informed the complainant that the institution has to sustain loss of tuition fees for a period of six years as the seat was already allotted to complainant’s daughter under management quota.   For that the complainant agreed to forego the said amount of Rs.50,000/- as he was responsible for causing to the institution.   The said seat is still vacant.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether non refund of Rs.50,000/- by the opposite parties to the complainant amounted to deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.     Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant approached the opposite parties for allotting a seat in Pharm-D course in the institution of opposite parties under management quota.
2. The tuition fees agreed for the 1^st year of Pharm-D course is Rs.1,50,000/-.
3.  The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as tuition fees on                     29-07-11 to ASN Pharmacy college who in turn issued receipt (Ex.A-1).
4. The complainant’s daughter did not join in college of opposite parties.
5. The complainant got issued notice to the opposite parties (Exs.A-2 to A-4).

7.   POINT No.1:-    The contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties orally agreed to return Rs.50,000/- in case complainant’s daughter got a seat in EAMCET.  On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- for getting his daughter admitted into Pharm-D course instead of Rs.1,55,000/- and never approached them for either return of the amount or paying the remaining amount.         

8.   The contention of both parties regarding promise made by each other is oral.  The only proof available is the receipt issued by the opposite parties i.e., Ex.A-1 dated 29-07-11 which revealed that the opposite parties charged Rs.50,000/- as tuition fees.  The complaint as well as affidavit was silent when complainant’s daughter joined in Chebrolu Hanumaiah Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guntur.   The complainant issued notice on 02-07-12 in writing at a belated period.

9.   The complainant’s daughter not prosecuting Pharm-D course in opposite parties institute is not disputed.  The complainant sought admission for his daughter was under management quota in six year Pharm-D course.   In Ex.A-5 certificate it was mentioned that Thalluri Dhanya Evangelin is a bonafide student of Chebrolu Hanumaiah Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences studying II/II Pharm-D during the academic year 2012-2013.   It can therefore be inferred that the complainant’s daughter joined in two year Pharm-D course only in Chebrolu Hanumaiah Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences which was different from the course which she intended to join in the college of opposite parties.   

10.   It is the contention of the opposite parties that they incurred loss as the complainant failed to keep his promise in joining his daughter under management quota and as the said seat is not yet filled up, they (opposite parties) incurred loss.  Soon after his daughter secured a seat in Chebrolu Hanumaiah Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences the complainant ought to have informed the same in writing to them so as to enable the opposite parties to fill the seat.  The complainant failed to do so.  Under those circumstances, the said contention of the opposite parties is having considerable force.  

11.  The contention of the complainant that he could not join his daughter in opposite parties’ college as he got a seat through EAMCET counseling is also having considerable force.   The opposite parties also did not seek any clarification in writing from the complainant about his daughter’s admission into their college.   We therefore opine that both parties did not act prudently.   Since the complainant had voluntarily withdrew from pursuing education in the college of opposite parties we cannot hold opposite parties alone committing deficiency of service.   As the complainant’s daughter did not join the college of opposite parties directing them to refund Rs.40,000/- in our considered opinion will meet ends of justice.  We therefore answer this point accordingly.   

12.  POINT No.2:-   In view of the discussions made supra, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  We therefore answer this point in favour of opposite parties.     

13.  POINT No.3:-     In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which it carries interest @9% p.a., from the date of order till realisation.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

 Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 11^th day of February, 2013.

          MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For opposite parties:  

                                                                            PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.