Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/40/2016

Bodigadda Ajay Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal, Godavari Institute of Engineering & Technology - Opp.Party(s)

Y. Satyanarayana Murthy

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                                                              Date of filing:  09.06.2016

                                                                                                                                               Date of Order: 30.12.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

 

          PRESENT:  Smt. D. Leelavathi, B.Sc., B.L.               PRESIDENT

       Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L.,  MEMBER          

      

            Friday, the 30^th day of December, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.40 /2016

Between:-

 

Bodigadda Ajay Babu, S/o. Pakeru, age 19 years,

Student, H.No.8-7, Timmarao Gudem, Chataparru Post,

Eluru Mandal, W.G. Dt. A.P. 534005.                                               …  Complainant

 

                                    And

 

The Principal, Godavari Institute of Engineering &

Technology, N.H.16, Chaitanya Knowledge City,

Rajamahendravaram – 533 296                                                          …  Opposite party

 

 

            This case coming on 09.12.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Y. Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D.S.S. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Smt.D. Leelavathi, President] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite party to return the original certificates of the complainant and to refund the Hostel fee of Rs.48,000/- with 24% interest per month from 28.10.2015 till realization  and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is that he joined in B.Tech Mechanical branch during the year 2014-15 and he paid Rs.10,000/- on 4.9.2014 towards university fee and caution deposit and also paid Rs.11,850/- towards special fee and admitted in the hostel attached to the college by paying an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 8.9.2014 and Rs.15,000/- on 5.3.2015. He further stated that he felt very in comfort in the hostel due to insufficient facilities and ragging. After completion of the first year, he admitted into the 2^nd year course, but left the college due to insufficient facilities. On 28.10.2015, he paid Rs.48,000/- towards hostel fee. At the time of admission, he submitted original certificates of 10^th class marks list, intermediate marks list, 6^th to 10^th study certificates, inter study certificates, transfer certificate and caste certificate. On 28.10.2015, he requested the opposite party to return the original certificates and refund of hostel fee, but the opposite party demanded Rs.2,00,000/- to return the original certificates. The complainant approached the opposite party for several times for return of certificates and return of money. Finally, the complainant got issued legal notice on 20.4.2016 to the opposite party demanding for return of original certificates. The opposite party received the notice, but did not give reply. Hence, the complaint. 

3.         The opposite party filed its written version and denied the main and material allegations in the complaint. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party submits that it is true that the complainant joined as a student in B.Tech Mechanical Branch, during the year 2014-15 as per the provisional allotment order, and that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- on 28.10.2015 vide receipt No.1509578 & 1509679 towards hostel fees and that the complainant vacated the hostel on 28.10.2015 and room vacation certificate was issued by the Chief Warden of the hostel of GIET. This opposite party denied that the complainant left the college due to deficiency of service of GIET. This opposite party submits that in fact after completion of 1^st year, the complainant joined in GIET hostel for the 2^nd year after conducting thorough enquiry about the GIET hostel and facilities. The very fact that the complainant paid the hostel fee with his own interest to continue the study in GIET college corroborates the fact that the complainant is fully satisfied with the hostel facilities during the 1^st year at GIET.  Had any dissatisfaction or disapproval exists regarding the hostel facilities or GIET ambience, he would have refrained from paying the 2^nd year fees. The fact that the complainant paid the 2^nd year fees shows beyond doubt that there were no insufficiencies whatsoever on the part of GIET and this fact will be used as a prima facie evidence. It is true that the complainant sent a legal notice to GIET on 20.4.2016 and duly sent rebuttal to the complainant to safeguard its interest. This opposite party submits that the complainant did neither approach the office of the GIET nor give any report either about ragging or about insufficiency of facilities at any point of time hitherto. His parents also never reported regarding this. There is no trace of even circumstantial evidence in regard to ragging in GIET. This opposite party submits that the complainant did not apply for obtaining scholarship during the year 2015-16 even though he is a scholarship holder. This itself indicates dereliction of preliminary and rudimentary duties to the complainant towards GIET. Suppressing the actual true facts and shortcomings on the part of the complainant, the complainant intentionally indulged in legal notices. It may be apt here to draw an attention to the fact that GIET diligently attempted to communicate with complainant through registered post letter dt.6.4.2016. However, the letter returned back because of incorrect address provided by the complainant. This proves that GIET worked diligently to service the complainant to ensure excellent academic progress of the complainant. Further, GIET sent three short message service (S.M.S) alerts asking attention of the complainant or his parents. Parents/guardian/complainant, however did not respond or meet GIET authorities. This clearly establishes the intention of GIET in providing excellent, individualized academic inputs and the dereliction of duties on the part of the complainant or the parent/guardian of the complainant. This opposite party submits that it is the primary duty of the complainant to acquaint himself with the rules and regulations of the institute. In fact the complainant has given an undertaking letter to abide by the rules and regulations of the institute. Parents/guardians of the complainant also signed indicating their willingness to abide by the rules and regulations. Such documents represent a clear and convincing proof of the GIET’s on the transparency and due diligence in delivering its commitments. This opposite party submits that it will provide good education and also provide excellent facilities in the hostel. So far GIET did not get any remark from any of the students to indicate deficiency of service. GIET has good reputation in providing all services to its students. The complainant intentionally filed the above case against this opposite party. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A10 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit is not filed by the opposite party.

5.         Heard the complainant. No representation on behalf of the opposite party.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  It is not in dispute that the complainant had joined in B.Tech in Mechanical Branch for the academic year 2014-15 as per the provisional allotment order of higher education vide Ex.A1. He was allotted pin No.14551A0378. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- vide Ex.A2 receipt on 4.9.2014 towards miscellaneous fees etc. and also paid an amount of Rs.11,850/- vide Ex.A3 receipt dated 8.9.2014 for accrediation & Student book bank scheme etc. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- vide Ex.A4 receipt and an amount of Rs.15,000/- vide Ex.A5 receipt dated 5.3.2015 towards hostel fee as he was admitted in the hostel attached to the college. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- on 28.10.2015 vide Exs.A6 & A7 receipts towards hostel fee and vacated the hostel on the same day and room vacation certificate was issued by the chief warden of the hostel of the opposite party college vide Ex.A8.

            According to the complainant though he was admitted into the 2^nd year course, after completion of the 1^st year, he left the college due to insufficient facilities in the college for good education and ragging in the college and that the facilities are not according to A.I.C.T. norms and during his 1^st year course, he felt very discomfort in the hostel due to insufficient facilities. At the time of admission in the college, he submitted the original certificates to the opposite party college authorities. They are (1) 10^th class  marks list, (2) Intermediate marks list, (3) 6^th to 10^th study certificate, (4) Inter Study Certificate, (5) Transfer certificate and    (6) Caste certificate. After he left the college and vacated the hostel on 28.10.2015, he requested the opposite party several times for return of the original certificates and refund of hostel fee paid by him on 28.10.2015. Then, the opposite party college authorities demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for return of the original certificates and refused to return of hostel fee paid by him on 28.10.2015 and the opposite party college authorities postponed to return the certificates on one pretext or the other for payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. Then, he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties college authorities vide Ex.A9 dated 20.4.2016 calling upon the opposite party for return of the original certificates and hostel fee amount. The opposite party received the notice, but not care to reply the notice. Therefore, he filed this complaint seeking that the original documents which had been submitted by him to the opposite party be returned to him so as to avail his other avenues as he would not be in a position to continue engineering course in the opposite party’s college due to insufficient facilities and ragging in the college and for refund of hostel fee.

            The opposite party has contended that after completion of 1^st year, the complainant joined in GIET hostel for the 2^nd year after conducting thorough enquiry about the said hostel and facilities. The very fact that the complainant paid the hostel fee with his own interest to continue the study in GIET college would show that the complainant is fully satisfied with the hostel facilities during the 1^st year in GIET hostel. Had any dissatisfaction/disapproval exists regarding the hostel facilities or GIET ambience, he would have refrained from paying the 2^nd year fees. The fact that the complainant paid the 2^nd year fees would show beyond doubt that there were no insufficiencies whatsoever on the part of the GIET.

            The opposite party further has contended that the complainant intentionally indulged in legal notice and in fact GIET diligently attempted to communicate with the complainant through registered post letter dt.6.4.2016, however, the letter returned because of incorrect address provided by the complainant. GIET also sent three short message service (SMS) alerts asking attention of the complainant or his parents, however, they did not respond or meet GIET authorities. This clearly establishes the intention of GIET in providing excellent, individualized academic inputs and the dereliction of duties are on the part of the complainant or the parent/guardian of the complainant. The opposite party further has contended that GIET is providing good education and also excellent facilities to the hostel. So far GIET did not get any remark for any of the students to indicate deficiency of service. GIET has good reputation in providing all services to its students. Therefore, the complainant has intentionally filed this case against GIET to gain undue advantage and perhaps with a view to ruin the name of the GIET, but not otherwise. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            The complainant has firmly stated in his proof affidavit that he felt very discomfort in the hostel during his 1^st year course due to insufficient facilities and ragging in the college and that the facilities in the college are insufficient for good education and facilities are not according to A.I.C.T. norms.

            We have thoroughly gone through the material on record which would show that the complainant could not continue his 2^nd year course and left the college due to insufficient facilities and ragging in the college. The opposite party has contended that had any dissatisfaction or disapproval exists, regarding the hostel facilities or GIET ambience, he would have refrained from paying the 2^nd year fees and therefore, there were no insufficiencies whatsoever on the part of the GIET.

            But, the contention of the opposite party cannot be accepted. Had the GIET provides good education and also excellent facilities in the hostel, the complainant would not have left the college even after the admission into the 2^nd year course. According to the complainant, the facilities in the college are insufficient for good education and the facilities are not according to A.I.C.T. norms, therefore, he obtained certificate from the chief warden of the hostel of the college. If the facilities in the college and hostel are good, no student would discontinue his studies that too after payment of necessary fees to the college. Further, there is no material filed by the opposite party to disprove the version of the complainant. Even the opposite party did not choose to file proof affidavit to substantiate its contention that the GIET has been providing good education and excellent facilities in the hostel. The counsel for the opposite party also did not argue the matter. In the absence of evidentiary material on the part of the opposite party, the version of the opposite party cannot be believed.

            The certificates of the complainant represent his property, they cannot be retained by the college at any rate. Even if, the college has any objection, the rejection of the original certificates is not proper by which the claim can be enforced. There is no lean on the certificates of the complainant.

            The learned counsel for the complainant in order to support his version, has relied upon a decision in W.P.No.29302/2015 (EDN-RES) filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in a case between Mr. Jilbin Joseph Vs. Viswesvaraya Technological University and another. In that case, the petitioner had joined the 4^th year B.E. Computer Science and Engineering for the academic year 2013-14. The admission was under the management quota. The petitioner met with an accident on 24.5.2014 when he is stated to have fallen down the stairs and fractured his right leg, right knee and underwent operation. In the said process, he missed the classes due to which he could not continue the course subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation seeking that the original documents which had been submitted be returned to him so as to avail his other avenues as he would not be in a position to continue the engineering course. Since the 2^nd respondent at the first instance had not acceded to the request of the petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have approached the 1^st respondent who had directed the 2^nd respondent to return the documents. Since the same has not been done, the petitioner filed mandamus petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karanataka at Bangalore. Wherein the Hon’ble Justice held that withholding of the documents by the 2^nd respondent would not be justified though the 2^nd respondent may avail their remedy of recovery of the amount from the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, a direction was issued to the 2^nd respondent to return the documents to which reference is made above within four weeks from the date on which a copy of the order is furnished to the 2^nd respondent.

            The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon another decision in W.P.(MD) No.14394/2012 in a case between S. Muthukamatchi Vs. The Director of Technical Education, Chennai and 3 others. In that decision, the Hon’ble Sri Justice              V. Ramasubramanian held that “the original certificates of the student cannot be retained at any rate because those certificates are not like fixed deposit receipt on which, banks claim a general lean in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act.  Hence, directed the 4^th respondent to return all the original documents deposited by the petitioner forthwith.”

            The above decisions which are submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case on hand.

            Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, we are of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the above decisions, the holding of documents by the opposite party would not be justified. We are not inclined to award any amount towards compensation to the complainant. We find the points accordingly.                  

            

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to return all the original certificates to the reference made above within four weeks from the date of this order. We further direct the opposite party to refund the hostel fee of Rs.48,000/- paid by the complainant on 28.10.2015 to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant. If the opposite party failed to obey this order, the complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution.

 

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 30^th day of December, 2016.

    

                  Sd/-                                                                                                                              Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:  None.                                                                                FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: None.

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:-

 

 

 

 

Ex.A1    Provisional allotment order of Convener EAMCET.

Ex.A2    Receipt No.1405254 dt.04.09.2014.

Ex.A3    Receipt No.1405522 dt.08.09.2014.

Ex.A4    Receipt No.1405521 dt.08.09.2014.

Ex.A5    Receipt No.1412754 dt.05.03.2015.

Ex.A6    Receipt No.1509678 dt.28.10.2015.

Ex.A7    Receipt No.1509679 dt.28.10.2015.

Ex.A8    Certificate issued by the chief warden dt.28.10.2015.

Ex.A9    O/c of legal notice got issued by the complainant dt.20.04.2016.

Ex.A10  Postal acknowledgement.

      

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:-    - Nil –

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT