Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 30th day of September, 2005
CD NO. 117/2005
U.Narayana Swamy,
S/o. E.Ramanjineyulu,
R/o. Door No. 9/159, Upstairs,
Raghavendra Swamy Sreet,
Kothapeta, Dhone,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Principal,
Priyadarsini College of Engineering,
Sullurpet, Nellore District, AP.
2. The Convenor,
EAMCEt, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad.A.P. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 27.9.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri Pokala Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool and opposite party No.1 and 2 set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Honb’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the admission fee of Rs.22,500/- with 18% interest from the date of cancellation, Rs.50,000/- as personal damages, cost of the case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant was allotted seat in opposite party No.1 Engineering College at the time of counseling and the complainant paid Rs.22,500/- as admission fee and joined the said college, in addition to said amount the complainant also paid Rs.1,500/- as required by the convener EAMCET. The complainant had to withdraw his admission from the said college due to intolerable ragging and as opposite party No.1 could not control his students the complainant had to quit the college. As per the instructions of opposite parties the complainant obtained a DD No. 866714 dt 5.11.2003 for Rs.4,000/- towards cancellation fee in order to get back his admission fee of Rs.22,500/-. The complainant along with his request letter submitted the said DD to the opposite parties for refund of admission fee, but to the dismay of the complainant inspite of several requests, reminders and demands the opposite parties did not respond positively nor paid the admission fee of Rs.22,500/-. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dt 10.3.2005 to both the opposite parties and there was no response from the opposite parties to the said letters. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties in not refunding the admission fee is held deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) is the attested xerox copy of letter dated 5.11.2003 addressed to opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 (2) xerox copy of fee receipt, dated 27.8.2003 of Engineering, Pharmacy Admission 2003, for Rs. 22,500/- (3) Legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1 and No.2 dated 10.3.2005 (4) Postal receipt No. 3400, dated 11.3.2005 (5) Postal receipt No. 3401, dated 11.3.2005 (6) Acknowledgement given by opposite party No.1 dated 11.3.2005 and (6) Acknowledgement given by opposite party No.2, dated 11.3.2005, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 for its appreciation in this case.
4. Inspite of receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties did not turn up to the case proceedings by filing any written version in their defence by their absence to the proceedings of the case and remained exparte.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties entitling him to the reliefs claimed:-
6. The Ex A.1 is the letter dt 5.11.2003 of opposite party No.1 addressed to opposite party No.2, it envisages the complainant Mr E. Narayana Swamy admitted through EAMCET counseling into EEE Branch of opposite party No.1 college had submitted a letter along with cancellation fee of Rs.4,000/- vide DD No. 866714 dt 5.11.2003 for cancellation of his seat and further opposite party No.1 requests the opposite party No.2 to consider the complainant’s case for cancellation. The Ex A.2 is the fee receipt dt 27.8.2003 for payment of Rs.22,500/- (Rs.22,000/- as course fee and Rs.500/- as counseling fee). The said exhibit also envisages the collection of DD for Rs.4,000/- for cancellation of allotment and the said allotment was cancelled by convener ( opposite party No.2) as per the endorsement on Ex A.2 and there appears no much difficulty in appreciating the Ex A.1 and A.2 as its contends speaks.
7. The Ex A.3 is the Lawyer’s notice dt 10.3.2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1 and 2. The same grievances such as non payment of admission fee of Rs.22,500/-, inspite of complainant paying cancellation fee of Rs.4,000/- vide DD bearing no. 866714 dt 5.11.2003 and further alleges the complainant will be constrained to take appropriate legal acts, if the opposite parties failed to refund the said amount along with legal notice charges of Rs. 500/- The Ex A.4 and A.5 are the postal receipts for sending Ex A.3 and Ex A.6 and A.7 are the postal acknowledgements as to the receipt of Ex A.3 Lawyer’s notice of the complainant by opposite parties 1 and 2.
8. In this case the complainant alleges that he is entitled for refund of admission fee of Rs.22,500/- paid by him to opposite party No.1 college in pursuance to the allotment of seat by opposite party No.2. As the complainant could not bear ragging in opposite party No.1 college sought cancellation of his allotment by paying Rs.4,000/- to opposite party No.1 towards cancellation fee. The Ex A.1 envisages the request of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 to consider the complainant’s case for cancellation. The Ex A.2 envisages the endorsement of opposite party No.2 as to complainant’s allotment cancelled and inspite of issuing Lawyers notice in Ex A.3 the opposite party No.1 neither replied nor refunded the admission fee of Rs.22,500/- to the complainant. The facts so envisages in Ex A.1 to A.7 and the complaint averments and the sworn affidavit averments in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties, Hence there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant. Imparting of education by an educational institute for consideration falls within the admits of ‘service’ as defined in the CP Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutes. If there is no rendering of services, question of payment of fees would not arise. Therefore, the complainant did not availed the services of opposite party No.1, hence, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint. The National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana and others Vs Viswa Buddhan Parishad and others reported in 2000 CTJ pg 801 held that admission expenses paid by the complainants at the time of admission should be refunded along with interest.
9. Thus the said lapsive conduct of opposite party No.1 in not refunding the admission fee of Rs.22,500/- to the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant and there by the grievances of the complainant is covered under the supra stated decision of National Commission holding the liability of the opposite party No.1 for refund of admission fee of Rs.22,500/- to the complainant with 12 percent interest form the date of cancellation till realization. As the opposite party No.1 by their non- responsive conduct appears to have caused mental agony and suffering to the complainant’s and ultimately led the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his grievances and the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs. 22,500/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of cancellation till realization along with Rs.1,000/- as costs of the complaint, within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to the dictation corrected by us pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of September, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses of Evidence
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Attested Xerox copy of letter dt 5.11.2003 addressed to opposite party
No.1 to opposite party No.1.
Ex A.2 Xerox copy of fee receipt, dt 27.8.2003 of Engineering, Pharmacy
Admission – 2003 for Rs.22,500/-.
Ex A.3 Legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1 and
No.2. dated 10.3.2005.
Ex A.4 Postal receipt No. 3440, dated 11.3.2005.
Ex A.5 Postal receipt No. 3401, dated 11.3.2005.
Ex A.6 Acknowledgment given by opposite party No.1, dated 11.3.2005.
Ex A.7 Acknowledgement given by opposite party No.2, dated 11.3.2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri Pokala Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool
2. The Principal, Priyadarsini College of Engineering, Sullurpet, Nellore District,
AP.
3. The Convenor, EAMCEt, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. A.P.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
