Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/4/2017

Thippeswamy.k S/o Kanumappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal,South East Asian Education Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanaryanarao

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:13.01.2017

DISPOSED      ON:13.10.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 4/2017

 

DATED:  13^th OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	Thippeswamy.K S/o Kanumappa, Age: 30 Years, Student, Pandrahally Village, Chitradurga Taluk.      (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Principal, South East Asian Education Trust, Ekta Nagar, K.R. Puram, Virgonagar Post, Bangalore-560 049.   2. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Godabanahal Village, Pandrahally Post, Chitradurga Taluk.   3. The Registrar, Vishveswaraiah Technological University, “Jnana Sangama” Belgavi-590 018.     (Rep by Sri. G.H. Sadashivappa, Advocate for OP No.1, Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate for OP No.2 and Sri. M. Govindareddy, Advocate for OP No.3)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for lapse of one year during 2016-17 without any education and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he was admitted for 2^nd year B.E., Civil Branch in the OP No.1 Institution as per the allotment by KEA, Bangalore.  Due to ill-health and family problems, he was not able to complete the subjects in stipulated time.  It is further submitted that, he has completed the 2^nd B.E., during 2015-16 with subjects and eligible for 3^rd year B.E., during academic year 2016-17.  It is further submitted that, complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- for admission of 3^rd year B.E., Civil Branch on 01.09.21016, the same has been accepted by OP No.1.  But after few days, on enquiry, he came to know from OP No.1 that, he is not eligible for admission to 3^rd year B.E., without getting clarification from OP No.3 as the name of the complainant not in the admission list.  It is further submitted that, the Head of Department of Civil Engineering is the concerned authority to issue eligibility certificate.  It is further submitted that, with regard to irregularities of Bank, the complainant has availed VSEL education loan facility from OP No.2 during the year 2015-16 to 2016-17, which was accepted by OP No.2 Bank.  The Bank authority has to pay the loan amount as per the fee structure issued by the college authorities without fail.  But, the Bank authorities have paid only Rs.10,000/- for admission of 3^rd year B.E., on 01.09.2016, it is not acted upon the fee structure schedule.  For the act of OP No.2 in delaying the payment and shortage of amount, the complainant has suffered heavily and looses his 3^rd year admission.  It is further submitted that, OP No.3 has also not taken proper care and action to get the revaluation results in time.  It is further submitted that, when the revaluation results are announced in September 2016, then the complainant was also eligible for 3^rd year B.E., as per VTU regulations.  It is further submitted that, even then, the Bank authorities have released the loan amount to the college and the college authorities have also refused to take admission of the complainant to 3^rd year B.E., during 2016-17.  Complainant is the student of 3^rd year B.E., at OP No.1 College by paying admission and other fee.  The cause of action for this complaint is when the complainant has issued legal notice to OP No.1, the same has been complied by denying the allegations on 20.12.2016.  Therefore, there is a deficiency on the part of OPs and therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.  

 3.    On service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through                    Sri. G.H. Sadashivappa, Advocate, OP No.2 appeared through Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate and OP No.3 appeared through Sri. M. Govindareddy, Advocate and filed their respective version.

OP No.1 filed version admitting about the complainant admitted for 2^nd year B.E., Civil Branch in their Education Institution as per the allotment of college by the KEA, Bangalore.  It is false to state that, due to ill-health and family problems, complainant was not able to complete the subjects in stipulated time and has completed the 2^nd year B.E., during 2015-16 with back subjects and eligible for 3^rd year B.E., during academic year 2016-17.  It is further false to state that, the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- for admission to 3^rd year B.E., on 01.09.2016 and after few days he came to know that, he is not eligible for admission to 3^rd year B.E., without getting clarification from OP No.3 and his name is not in admission list.  It is further false to state that, the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering is the concerned authority has to verify the results and authenticated to issue the eligibility certificate and the irregularities of the Bank that the complainant has availed VSEL education loan facility from the OP No.2 during the year 2015-16 to 2016-17.  The loan proposal has been accepted by OP No.2 and the Bank authorities has to pay the loan amount as per the fee structure issued by OP No.1 and the OP No.2 has intentionally paid Rs.10,000/- for admission of 3^rd year B.E., on 01.09.2016 and the OP No.2 has not acted upon the fee structure are denied as false.  It is denied that, the OP No.3 has not taken proper care and action to get the revaluation results in time and when the revaluation results announced in September 2016, the complainant is also eligible for 3^rd year B.E., as per the VTU regulation.  The allegation made in para 6 that, even though the OP No.2 released the loan amount to OP No.1, OP No.1 refused to take admission to the 3^rd year B.E., during 2016-17 are denied as false.  The complainant voluntarily has not attended the college and there was a long absent and not intimated the same to OP No.1 and therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.     OP No.2 filed version denying the averments made in the complaint.  It is submitted that, OP No.2 has sanctioned loan for VSEL to the complainant as per sanction memorandum dated 23.01.2015 of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 13.50% p.a. The terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum are accepted and signed by the complainant and co-obligations.  The terms and conditions of the loan sanction for the following years is furnished as below:

Particulars	1st Year	2nd Year	3rd Year	4th Year	5th Year	Total
1. Other Fee	-	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-	-	Rs.30,000/-
2. Books and Stationary Uniform	-	Rs.5,000/-	-	-	-	Rs.5,000/-
3. Hotel and room rent	-	Rs.20,000/-	40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-	-	Rs.1,00,000/-
Total	-	Rs.35,000/-	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.50,000/-	-	Rs.1,35,000/-

               

It is further submitted that, as per the terms and conditions, OP No.1 has pad 2^nd year fee of Rs.35,000/- on 20.02.2015, the same has been debited to his SB A/c No.106091013658, Rs.10,000/- debited to his account on 31.08.2016 and issued through DD in the name of Principal SEAE Trust, Bangalore on 01.09.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant has not produced the letter from the college/hostel authorities to release another installments of Rs.40,000/- towards hostel fee nor requested the OP No.2 till today.  The complainant was not entitled for eligibility to 3^rd year B.E., in 2015-16 as a result of more than 4 subjects back.  The 3^rd year B.E., classes for 2016-17 started on 1^st August 2016 and the complainant was not eligible for admission as he is still 6 subjects back after announcement of VTU results in August 2016.  It is true that, the complainant has availed VSEL education loan facility from OP No.2 during the year 2015-16 to 2016-17 by accepting the loan proposals as per the sanction memorandum.  It is false to state that, the OP No.2 has not acted upon the fee structure schedule, which caused lot and the admission of the complainant was withheld for delay in payment and shortage of amount, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2. 

It is further submitted that, when the 3^rd year B.E., classes for the year 2016-17 started on 1^st August 2016, complainant was not eligible for admission as he still had 6 back subjects after announcement of VTU results in August 2016.  Subsequently, complainant has got eligibility to 3^rd year B.E., only after the announcement of revaluation results by VTU in September 2016.  Therefore, from 1^st August 2016 until the announcement of revaluation results in September 2016 complainant was not eligible for 3^rd year B.E., as per VTU regulations during that period.  It is further submitted that, complainant kept quite for three months from September 2016 till today without making sincere attempt to get admission after he got eligibility, he is going to prove committed deficiency of service against the OPs and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.     OP No.3 filed version stating that, the averments of the complaint made by the complainant are against OP No.1, 2 and OP No.3 is not concerned to the matter on dispute involved between the complainant and OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 is not a necessary party to this case.  Therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, the same is liable to be dismissed.  It may be true that, the complainant was admitted in the OP No.1 College and further averments made in the complaint are not known to this OP No.3.  The averments made in para 4 of the complaint are concerned to OP No.1 and the averments made in para 5 of the complaint are concerned with OP No.2 and this OP No.3 is has no comments, this OP is not liable to pay any compensation.  It is false to state that, OP No.3 has not taken proper care and action to get the revaluation results. The averments made in para 6 of the complaint that, OP No.3 has not taken proper care and action to get the revaluation results in time are all false.  OP No.3 on receiving the applications of students for revaluation has promptly conducted the revaluation process and published the revaluation results forthwith.  It is the duty of the concerned student to look into the results announced on the basis of revaluation and if he is eligible for admission to next semester he should have get admission in the concerned college after observing the procedure laid down by the University regulations and rules.  The complainant had to be vigilant and get admission if he was eligible to admission for next semester and the OPs are not liable for lapses on the part of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 6.    Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 have been got marked. On behalf of OP No.1 one Sri. Nijaguna, the Assistant Professor and authorized signatory has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence, on behalf of OP No.2, Sri. K.T. Hema Reddy, the Manager and PA Holder has examined as DW-2 by filing the affidavit evidence and on behalf of OP No.3 Sri.Jagannatha Reddy, the Registrar of OP No.3 has examined as DW-3 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-5 documents have been got marked.   

7.     Arguments heard. 

8.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in giving admission to his 3^rd year B.E., and sanction of loan and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        9.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- In the Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

10.   It is not in dispute that, complainant was admitted for 2^nd year B.E., Civil Branch in the OP No.1 Institution as per the allotment by KEA, Bangalore.  Due to ill-health and family problems, he was not able to complete the subjects in stipulated time.  The contention of the OPs is that, the complainant was not completed the subjects well in time that is the main reason for repudiation of the claim of the complainant.  The complainant has relied on the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 i.e, legal notice sent to OP No.1 on 05.12.2016 through RPAD stating that the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- for admission to 3^rd year BE on 01.09.2016 marked as Ex.A-1, reply notice dated 20.12.2016 issued by the Advocate for OP No.1 to the Advocate for complainant even when the 3^rd year B.E., classes for 2016-17 started on 01.08.2016, the complainant is not eligible for admission as he still had 6 back subjects after the announcement of VTU results in August 2016, the same has marked as Ex.A-2 and the circular issued by the Registrar of VTU on 06.04.2016 to all the colleges the same has been marked as Ex.A-3.  The OPs have relied on Ex.B-1 to B-5 i.e., authorization letter dated 03.02.2016 marked as Ex.B-1, reply notice dated 20.12.2016 to the advocate for complainant stating that, the complainant is not eligible for admission to 3^rd year B.E., marked as       Ex.B-2, legal notice issued by the advocate for complainant to the OP No.1 on 05.12.2016 marked as Ex.B-3, legal notice dated 13.01.2017 issued by the advocate for complainant to OP No.2 marked as Ex.B-4 and statement of account marked as Ex.B-5.     

 

11.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out from the Ex.B-1 to B-5 the complainant has not completed the subjects within the stipulated time for eligible to 3^rd year B.E.  The OP No.2 has taken a main contention that, the complainant has not completed the back subjects within the stipulated time.  As per the Rules and Regulations, once the candidate failed to pass the subjects well in time, the Bank authority has no right to sanction the loan for next year.  On this ground only, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 13/10/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

                                     

 

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Nijaguna, the Assistant Professor and authorized signatory of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-2:  Sri. K.T. Hema Reddy, the Manager and PA Holder of OP 2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-3:  Sri. Jagannatha Reddy, the Registrar of OP No.3 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice sent to OP No.1 on 05.12.2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Reply notice dated 20.12.2016 issued by the Advocate for OP No.1 to the Advocate for complainant
03	Ex.A-3:-	Circular issued by the Registrar of VTU

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Authorization letter dated 03.02.2016
02	Ex-B-2:-	Reply notice dated 20.12.2016 to the advocate for complainant
03	Ex.B-3:-	Legal notice issued by the advocate for complainant to the OP No.1
04	Ex.B-4:-	Legal notice dated 13.01.2017 issued by the advocate for complainant to OP No.2
05	Ex.B-5:-	Statement of account

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**