IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
PRESENT: HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT
TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MEMBER
F.A.No.16/2015
(Against the order passed in C.C.No.23/2012, dated 22.04.2014 on the file of the District Commission, Nagapattinam)
WEDNESDAY, THE 08th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.
Dhurai Vel. K,
No.5/25, Kovil Kuthagai,
North Kathari Palam,
Vedharanyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam Districft – 614 808. Appellant/Complainant
Vs
1. The Principal,
M/s. Nanda College of Pharmacy &
Research Institute,
Koorapalayam Pirivu,
26/51, 4th Main Road,
Pitchandampalayam – Post,
Erode – 638 052.
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. Nanda College of Pharmacy &
Research Institute,
Koorapalayam Pirivu,
26/51, 4th Main Road,
Pitchandampalayam – Post,
Erode – 638 052.
3. The Dean,
Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,
Guindy, Chennai. Respondent/Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. Maheswaraiah, Advocates.
Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2/Ops 1 & 2 : M/s. I.C. Vasudevan, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents-3 /Opposite Party-3: M/s. Sanjay Ramasamy, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 25.08.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-
ORDER
HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant herein under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the Learned District Commission, Nagapattinam made in C.C.No.23/2012, dated 22.04.2014, dismissing the complaint.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;- The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he was admitted in the 1st opposite party’s college in M. Pharm., course for the academic year 2009-2011 and the stipulated fee for the above course as approved by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, 3rd opposite party herein is only Rs.45,000/- for the academic year 2009-2010. But, the complainant was forced to remit Rs.1,50,000/- towards fee for each year and accordingly for the 1st year, the complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 077645, 077646 dated 22.10.2011 drawn in M/s. Canara Bank, Vedharanyam. Similarly, for the 2nd year, he paid Rs.1,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 078235, 0788236, dated 02.01.2011 drawn in M/s. Canara Bank, Vedharanyam. That apart, the complainant had also paid Rs.50,000/- towards fee for II term for the 2nd year course for which the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not issued any receipt. The 3rd opposite party, being the controlling authority is duty bound to inspect and check the self-financing institution which was recognized by the 3rd opposite party. In fact, the complainant personally had intimated the 3rd opposite party about the collection of excess fee; but they did not take any action against the opposite parties 1 & 2. The complainant has also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the excess amount paid by him. But, there was no response for the said legal notice. Hence, the complainant approached the District Commission with a complaint claiming for a direction to the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/-as litigation expenses.
3. Resisting the case of the complainant, the opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed a joint written version whereas the 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission. The opposite partiers 1 & 3 in their written version have contended, inter alia that the complainant was admitted for M. Pharm., course for the academic year 2009 – 2011 and paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- and other fees prescribed by the college for the M. Pharm., course. The fees structure of the 1st opposite party was provided to the complainant at the time of admission itself. But, the complainant requested the opposite parties 1 & 2 to furnish a complete fees structure including the hostel fees and other expenses to enable him to avail bank loan to continue his studies. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party provided Fees Structure for M. Pharmacy Course along with hostel fees and other expenses and based on it, the complainant availed a bank loan and paid the said fees through Bank and in turn it was also duly acknowledged and the same was intimated to the bank in time. The contention of the complainant that he was forced to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for each year is not correct. The allegation that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 2nd term of II year Course is totally false and baseless. The complainant has not approached the Consumer Commission with clean hands. In fact, the complainant had sent a letter to the 3rd opposite party under Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting to furnish the fees structure pertaining to M. Pharm., course for which a proper reply was sent to the complainant on 03.01.2012 and the same was acknowledged by the complainant on 17.01.2012. The allegation that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have collected excess amount from the complainant over and above the stipulated fees with the support of the 3rd opposite party is false. The complainant and his father have given a joint Declaration agreeing to pay the college fee and hostel fee as prescribed by the College. Further, they have undertaken to resolve the dispute if any arose between the complainant and the opposite parties in respect of the above Declaration. Hence, the opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Before the District Commission, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked. Whereas on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 3, proof affidavit was filed reiterating their contentions and Exhibits B1 to B8 were marked.
5. On hearing the submission and analysing the evidences adduced on both parties, the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint by holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved over the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant has preferred this appeal before this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and to grant the relief as prayed for in the complaint by allowing this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the regulations issued by the 3rd opposite party, the Dean, M.G.R. Medical University, the fees for M. Pharm., course is only Rs.45,000/- whereas the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the fees for the M. Pharm., course by way of Demand Draft under Ex A3 and A4 and therefore the complaisant/appellant is entitled for refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties 1 & 2. Whereas, it is contended on the side of the opposite parties that fee was collected under Ex B3 wherein the details of fees has been mentioned that a total fees payable by the complainant for the course is Rs.1,50,000/- including hostel room rent and mess expenses, etc., But, the complainant has not availed the hostel and mess facilities as it has been mentioned in Ex B3. When that being so, the District Commission ought to have allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant since the complainant had not availed hostel room and mess facilities. Whereas, the opposite parties 1 and 2 would submit that the complainant was admitted in M. Pharm., course for the year 2009-2011 under the fee structure of Rs.1,50,000/- which includes tuition fee of Rs.45,000/- as approved by the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, 3rd opposite party along with hostel fee and other expenses including mess, stationary and book fees, examination fees, etc., as per Ex B3. Based on the fees structure furnished by the college of the opposite parties 1 & 2, the complainant obtained an educational loan of Rs.3,00,000/-and completed his studies. Further, the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that he attended the college only as day-scholar despite the fact that he availed the educational loan including Hostel rent and Mess expenses etc., and paid the same to the opposite parties 1 & 2. Absolutely, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the appeal has to be dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission.
7. It is the case of the complainant/appellant that as per the fees structure prescribed by the 3rd opposite party University, the college ought to have collected only a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards tuition fees. Whereas, the opposite parties 1 & 2 have collected a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as fees from the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice followed by the deficiency in service on their part. Ex B3, fees structure marked by the opposite parties 1 & 2, would clearly show that tuition fee payable by the complainant is only Rs.45,000/-. Apart from that, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have collected hostel room rent, mess expenses and other fees under various captions. Since the complainant studied as day-scholar, he need not to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as fees and therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 have collected excess fees from the complainant and the same has to be refunded. But, the learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the appellant availed the educational loan of Rs.3,00,000/- based on the fees structure furnished by the opposite parties 1 & 2 under Ex B3 and therefore the college need not to refund any amount to the complainant.
8. But, we are of the considered opinion that when the complainant had obtained educational loan by producing the fee structure issued by the college authorities stating that the fees payable by the complainant is only Rs.1,50,000/-, now he cannot ask for refund of the same from the opposite parties 1 & 2. Moreover, the complainant has not raised any objection regarding the fees while he was studying in the course. However, the college authority has raised the contention that the complainant had not studied as day-scholar. Therefore, the question of refund of tuition fees cannot be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the learned District Commission and there is no need to interfere with the same and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagapattinam made in C.C.No.23/2012, darted 22.04.2014. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, R. SUBBIAH,
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Index: Yes/No
TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Sep/2021
