This case is coming for final hearing on 19.01.2015 in the presence of Sri C.R.Vasanth Kumar and Ch.Lakshmi Prasad Rao, Advocates for the Complainants and of Sri B.S.S.N.Raju Advocate for Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainants is that the 1^st complainant is the son of Aku Venkata Bala Krishna and the 2^nd complainant is the son of Aku Adi Seshaiah and the 1^st opposite party is the principal of Gandhi Institute of Technology and management Engineering College, Gitam University, Gandhi Nagar Campus, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam and the 2^nd opposite party is the Registrar of Gitam University.  The complainants stated that the 1^st complainant appeared in GAT-UGTP-2011 online test on 18.04.2011 which was conducted by the opposite parties and got 4262 rank in the said exam and received counseling call.  The Complainants took a Demand draft bearing No.986073 on 08.06.2011 for Rs.1,40,000/- towards college tuition fees as directed by the opposite parties and both the complainants attended the counseling centre at Tirupathi on 13.06.2011 and the 1^st complainant took admission in B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineer Department for the academic year 2011-2012 by submitting the demand draft to the counseling authorities at Tirupathi and provisional allotment order was issued in favour of the 1^st complainant by the Centre Coordinator, Tirupathi.  The 2^nd complainant being father of 1^st complainant, paid that amount and also paid Rs.50,100/- towards building fund and Rs.25,000/- towards hostel fees as the complainant’s family is away from Visakhapatnam with a fond hope that the opposite parties’ college authorities will take good care of his son i.e., 1^st complainant for his better future, even though it is very costly and beyond the capacity of 2^nd complainant.  The classes of 1^st complainant with the opposite parties’ college began from 07.07.2011.  While so, on 08.07.2011 at about 15.15hrs the 2^nd complainant received a phone call from the opposite parties’ college authorities intimating that the 1^st complainant was injured and he was admitted in I.C.U of Shri Venkataramana Hospital, Krishna Nagar, Zilla Parishad Junction, Visakhapatnam and ordered 2^nd complainant to take control of 1^st complainant.  Then, the 2^nd complainant rushed and reached to the said hospital on 09.07.2011 at 4.00hrs in the early morning as 2^nd complainant herein have to travel 606Kms to reach Visakhapatnam form Nellore and found that none of the opposite parties college staff was present at the said hospital to take care of his son. 

2.       After that the 2^nd complainant was informed by the students due to inadequate facilities available with the opposite parties’ college and hostel, the 1^st complainant got head injury within the premises of college and became unconscious.  But the opposite parties’ authorities said that the 1^st complainant fell down from an auto and had head injury.  The doctors of the said hospital informed the 2^nd complainant that due to said injury there developed a blood clot in one of the nerve of the brain of 1^st complainant and the case is very serious.  Then the 2^nd complainant took the 1^st complainant from the said hospital by flight to Apollo Specialty Hospital at Chennai and admitted there as inpatient on 09.07.2011 at 7.28p.m.  Thus, the 1^st complainant attended the college for one day only i.e., 07.07.2011 and on the very second day the 1^st complainant became unconscious as he was inured on the head.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to protect their hostel students but failed to do so.  Then, the 2^nd complainant decided to drop out his son i.e., 1^st complainant from the opposite parties according to the advise given by the doctors at Chennai to take bed rest at least one month and under doctor’s observation at least for one year and also there are no adequate facilities in the college and no proper care and no safety to the hostel students to continue with the opposite parties’ college.  Hence, in the said circumstances as it is not possible to continue the education of his son, the 2^nd complainant  sent his wife by name Aku Rajani Krishna along with a letter dated 11.07.2011 informing the opposite parties that the 2^nd complainant decided to drop out the 1^st complainant from its college and requested them to cancel the admission and give back the original certificates, documents etc., along with refund of college fees, building fund and hostel fees which was paid by the complainant.  The opposite parties’ authorities issued the original certificates of the 1^st complainant on 13.07.2011 and informed that they will refund back the tuition fees, building fund and hostel fees by way of cheques by post. 

3.       The 1^st complainant was discharged from Apollo Hospital, Chennai on 22.11.2011 after payment of bill for Rs.1,36,870.76p.s. in installments.  But the 1^st opposite parties sent a cheque bearing No.000155 dated 26.07.2011 for Rs.49,250/- towards refund of building fund and another cheque bearing No.000321 dated 30.07.2011 for Rs.25,000/- towards refund of hostel fees but failed to keep up their promise and failed to refund the college fees of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainants.  The complainants stated that they incurred more than Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment of head injury of the 1^st complainant and the entire family of the complainants’ suffered both physically and mentally for several months due to the negligent act of the opposite parties.  The complainants waited for refund of college tuition fee till 28-02-2012 and after that they got issued a lawyer’s notice on 29.02.2012 to the opposite parties’ authorities to refund the tuition fee of Rs.1,40,000/- with 24% interest per annum and compensation etc., and the same was received by the 1^st opposite party and issued reply notice on 21.03.2012 with false and frivolous allegations.  The admissions of all engineering colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh including the opposite parties University in all departments of B.Tech continued up to 08.08.2011 and after cancellation of admission of 1^st complainant on 11.07.2012 the opposite parties filled the vacancy by admitting another candidate from the waiting list of students and thus there is no vacuum in the B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering department for the academic year 2011-2012 due to the cancellation of admission of the 1^st complainant.  The complainant came to know of the said fact on their enquiries and the same is evident through the advertisement issued by the opposite party authorities in Eenadu daily newspaper dated 22.07.2011 relating to her admissions and the same shows that there are no vacancies in B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering department.  Hence, the opposite parties did not incur any loss due to the cancellation of admission of 1^st complainant herein and more over the opposite parties authorities unauthorisedly and illegally for unlawful and illegal gain retained the college tuition fees of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the complainants herein without refunding the same.  As per the policy of the University Grants Commission the opposite parties authorities has to refund the entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- and the UGC requested the universities to abide by the said instructions and further instructed that the UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions vide public notice bearing F.No.1-3/2007(CPP-B) dated 23.04.2007 and also in the direction communication sent to deemed to be universities all over India under reference F.No.6-1(7)/2006 dated 22.06.2011.  Thus, the opposite parties violated the UGC directions also.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a) to refund the tuition fees of Rs.1,40,000/- with 24% from 29.02.2012 till the date of realization.

b) to pay Rs.1,36,870.76p.s. towards medical expenses.

c) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages besides costs.

4.       On the otherhand, both the opposite parties filed their counter and admitted about the online test which was conducted by them and appeared by the complainant and also about the rank of 4262.  The opposite parties also admitted about the demand draft dated 08.06.2011 for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the complainant to them by submitting the said draft to the authorities at Tirupathi.  The opposite parties also admitted about the admission of 1^st complainant in their university and running of hostel by them by paying Rs.50,100/- towards building fund and Rs.25,000/- towards hostel fees.  But denied all other allegations of the complaint and pleaded that the 1^st complainant admitted in B.Tech CSE by paying the prescribed fees of Rs.1,40,000/- and he submitted the original certificates during the registration of 1^st year students.  Subsequently, the complainants’ mother submitted a representation on 11.07.2011 for cancellation of her son’s admission with a request to refund the fee amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and to return the original certificates.  The originals were returned to her mother by taking acknowledgment.  As per the condition No.4 of Provisional allotment order dated 13.06.2011 “If any candidate withdraws voluntarily form admission after 03.07.2011, the fees paid will not be refunded if any vacuum in the concerned department.  No further correspondence will be entertained”.  The Complainant voluntarily withdrawn after closed the admission date i.e., 03.07.2011, so the complainant is not entitled to claim the said tuition fee as there is no chance to fill the vacuum after closed the admission.  The said vacancy has not been filed either through wait listed rank holders or through paper advertisements and these opposite parties sustained terrible loss for a 4 years tuition fee i.e., Rs.5,60,000/-.  In fact, the opposite parties have to recover from the complainants through court of law.  But the opposite parties did not take any steps due to sympathy because 1^st complainant sustained injury.  The Director of student’s affairs of opposite party authorities and Dy warden have rushed to the accident spot for taking care of 1^st complainant and admitted in Sri Venkata Ramana Nursing Home for treatment as necessary.  Then the parents of the students were informed by this opposite parties about the accident and taken care till the parent’s presence.  The 1^st complainant sustained injuries due to accident only and there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  The advertisements published in Eenadu daily newspaper on 22.07.2011, the B.Tech course was not included for spot admission and it is only for B.tech Aeronautical Engineering for Hyderabad Campus and M.Pharmacy, M.Sc. Programs at Visakhapatnam Campus. 

5.       The opposite parties immediately returned the documents and also sent cheques for an amount of Rs.49,250/- and Rs.25,000/- on 26.07.2011 and 30.07.2011 to the complainants, but the tuition fees was not paid due to the condition of Provisional Allotment Order and vacuum in the said CSE Department.  The complainant issued a Legal Notice and the opposite parties also issued a reply notice and subsequently complainants issued one more notice, but the opposite parties not issued any reply.  The complainants not send any correspondence along with Legal notice dated 29.02.2012 only his mother’s letter dated 11.07.2011 to the chief warden and principal.  The letter was enclosed postal receipt and the date shown as 13.01.2012.  Thus, it is clearly understood the postal receipt was fabricated.  The Opposite parties stated that their college is not affiliated college to fill the seats like all the engineering colleges in Andhra Pradesh as alleged in the complaint and the admission process was continued up to 08.08.2011 is false.  On 13.08.2007 GITAM University is deemed university under Section-3 of UGC act and it has no UGC grants and only depends on only students tuition fees is the main revenue to pay the salaries to the teaching and non teaching staff and further maintenance and infrastructure.  Hence, the complainants are not entitled to claim tuition fee as per allotment order, policy decision and statutory authorities norms.  As such there is no deficiency of service on its part.  The opposite parties stated that the complainants are students and he is not a consumer, hence this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Hence, as stated above the complaint is to be dismissed.

6.       At the time of enquiry, both the complainants filed their affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A10 are marked.  On the other hand, the opposite parties filed their counters, evidence affidavit and Exhibit B1 is marked.  The opposite parties also filed their written arguments and treated no written arguments for complainants.  Heard both the counsels who reiterated their versions.

7.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainants entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

8.       The fact that Exhibit A1 is the fees payment receipt issued by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- on 13.06.2011 is not in dispute.  Ex.A2 is the Provisional Allotment Order issued by the opposite parties’ authorities to the 1^st complainant is also admitted fact.  Ex.A3 is the Discharge Summary of 1^st Complainant given by Sri Venkata Ramana Hospital on 09.07.2011.  Ex.A4 is the letter dated 11.07.2011 issued by the mother of the 1^st complainant to opposite parties regarding refund of admission fees, building fund and hospital fees along with original certificates etc. Ex.A5 is the Inpatient bill issued by Apollo Specialty Hospital, Chennai on 22.07/2011 for an amount of Rs.1,36,870/-.  Ex.A6 is the copy of the registered lawyer’s notice dated 29.02.2012 issued by the complainants and Ex.A7 is the three postal receipts.  Ex.A8 is the acknowledgment from Opposite parties.  Ex.A9 is the reply notice given by opposite parties on 21.03.2012 and Ex.A10 is the Public Notice issued by University Grants Company bearing No.F.No.6-1(7)/2006(CPP-I) and public notice issued by UGC on 23.04.2007 bearing F.No. 1-3/2007(CPP-II).

9.       The contention of the complainants is that he paid Rs.1,40,000/- on 08.06.2011 towards tuition fees to the opposite parties and attended classes on 07.07.2011 only.  On 08.07.2011 the 1^st complainant was injured because of lack of care by the staff of opposite parties and inadequate facilities in the hostel as well as in college, the 1^st complainant got head injury within the premises of opposite parties’ college and became unconscious after that he joined in hostel, the same was informed to 2^nd complainant and he took the 1^st complainant to Apollo hospital, Chennai.  But here, it is to be noted that as per Ex.A5 i.e., impatient bill as well as discharge summary given by Apollo Hospital wherein, the 1^st page of discharge summary clearly mentioned that “history of loss of consciousness (+)”, hence the Forum is of the view that the accident occurred to the 1^st complainant only because of his past history and not because of inadequate facilities of the opposite parties and there itself in Ex.A5 it also mentioned “allegedly lost balance and fell out of a running auto rickshaw on 08.07.2011 at 2.30p.m, hence we are of the view that the 1^st complainant want to get in, in a running auto rickshaw, then he lost his balance and fell down and accident was occurred to him.  As such in our view, the complainants cannot claim the medical expenses, as there is no part of the opposite parties regarding the accident of the complainants.

10.     The version of the opposite parties is that they returned the original certificates, refund the hostel fees and building fees to the complainants, but the complainants cannot claim the tuition fees as per Ex.A2, wherein, it clearly mentioned that “if any candidate withdraws voluntarily from admission after 03.07.2011, the fee paid will not be refunded, if any vacuum in the concerned department.  No further correspondence will be entertained”. 

The opposite parties relied upon some decisions:

          2004(1) ALD(Cons.) 7 “No deficiency in service as the complainant voluntarily withdrawing from college and he is not entitled for refund of fees. Herein, in this case, the college supplied the material to the complainant and several tests were held during the period when the complainant stayed in the college and more over in Secretary, Pala Municipality (Principal) I.T.C Vs. Biju Joseph, 1996(2) CPR 228, where under the National Commission held that when the complainants had withdrawn voluntarily after study of two months and the management could not admit any new student for the course in his place and according  to the terms and conditions of the prospectus and agreement, the student is obliged to pay for the second year also.  Here, the student availed some services from the college and the seat was vacant. 

In another case CPR 1995(3) cons p 13 and B.D Kapoor Vs.State of Haryana CWP 9410/2012 here in this matter the facts are different.

AIR SC 93/2009 Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha held that Board was not a “service provider” and a student who takes an examination is not a consumer.  Here in this case, the complaint filed against the examination board, but at present case the complaint filed against university, it is not an examination board.   As per the decision filed by the opposite parties’ authorities are 2004(1) ALD speaks that the student is a ‘consumer’. 

11.     The opposite parties other plea is that as per Ex.A2 i.e., Provisional Allotment order, the fees will not be refunded if any candidate withdraws voluntarily from admission if any vacuum in the concerned department, but the opposite parties did not file any document to show that there is vacuum in the concerned department i.e., B.Tech CSE Department.  The simple denial of the facts would not throw the burden of proof on the other side as pleaded by the opposite parties’ counsel.  The opposite parties have to substantiate its plea regarding the vacuum in the concerned department by filing their record.  But they failed to do so.  More over the copy of the paper Eenadu Daily newspaper which was filed by the complainant i.e., unmarked document as it is the Photostat copy of the newspaper.  The opposite parties also not denied the paper advertisement issued by the opposite parties’ authorities in Eenadu Daily Newspaper, wherein, it clearly mentioned regarding the vacancies of M.Pharmacy and M.Sc in Visakhapatnam Campus and not included the B.Tech for spot admission.  But they mentioned the vacancies in Hyderabad Branch.  Hence, we are of the view that there was no vacuum for that concerned department in the university.  In Ex.A2 also it was clearly mentioned that if there any vacuum the fees will not be refunded.  That too in Ex.A10 i.e., the University Grants Commission also issued a Public Notice to all the universities by stating that “In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seats.  The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the program.  Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently, falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.  Thus, the opposite parties have to substantiate its plea regarding vacancy of the seat after the cancellation of admission by the 1^st complainant.

12.     The Opposite parties filed a document that was marked as Ex.B1, that document is the invoice of Om Sai Professional Detective and Security Services (P) Ltd.,  dated 30.11.2014 wherein, it clearly shows the number of security supervisors and security guards and their payments etc.  This document was filed by the opposite parties to show that there was security in their university to take care of students.  But the date of document is 30.11.2014 but the accident occurred to the 1^st complainant on 08.07.2011.

13.     As per the decision given by National Commission 2014(4)CPR 618 wherein it clearly explained that “in absence of any evidence to show that the opposite party has suffered  any financial loss because of withdraw of candidature, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders which may call for interference in exercise of revisional  jurisdiction.  The Opposite party cannot take advantage of conditions mentioned in brochure which is violative of instructions issued by UGC.  There the National Commission clearly explains about the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer.  In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year.  If it feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee”. 

14.     Hence, we are of the view that when there is no evidence to show that the seat vacated by the complainant remained unfilled during the academic year and in the absence of any evidence to show that the opposite parties have suffered financial loss because of withdrawal by the 1^st complainant, as they failed to prove the opposite parties are liable to refund the tuition fees after deduction of the processing fees of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant which would be just and proper.

15.     The 2^nd relief of the complainant regarding the refund of the medical expenses of Rs.1,36,870.76p.s. we are of the view that as per Ex.A5 we came to know that past history of the complainant regarding the loss of consciousness and more over, he lost balance and fell down from running auto rickshaw and sustained injuries and hence there is no part of opposite parties in that accident, hence, the complainants cannot claim the medical expenses from the opposite parties.

16.     Even though, there is public UGC to the university, the opposite parties failed to refund the tuition fees to the 1^st complainant, hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation is just and proper. 

17.     The claim regarding the interest of 24% p.a. on tuition fees amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by the complainants is on higher side and allowing 9% interest per annum from 29.02.2012 i.e., legal notice issued by the complainant is just and reasonable. 

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

18.     In the result, the complaint is allowed directing both the opposite parties to refund the tuition fees amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with 9% interest from 29.02.2012 till the date of payment besides that the opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,500/-.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. 

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2015.

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I 

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

   Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//