Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

262/2008

Mr. Arun Sekhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Registrar, Shanmuga Arts and Science Technology and Reserch Academy & another - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.L.Narasimhan

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 26.05.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                 :  MEMBER-I

          DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS  : MEMBER II                              

CC. NO.262 /2008

FRIDAY THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2018                                             

Mr. Arun Sekhar,

No.110 Sector IV,

R.K. Puram,

New Delhi 110 022.                                                    Complainant

 

                                      ..Vs..

1. The Registrar,

Shanmuga Arts and Science Technology

and Research Academy,

(SASTRA),

Thanjavur, 613 402. 

 

2. The Branch Office,

No.9, Karnam Street,

Rengarajapuram,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai 600 024.                                            .  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s.  M.V.L. Narasimhan & another    

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. G.R.Associates

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to refund a sum of Rs.51,850/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he joined as student of M.Tech (Integrated) Industrial Biotechnology course in the year 2006 on merits.  He paid a sum of R.51,850/- towards tuition fee, development charges, other fees and hostel charges.  The complainant further state that  he attended college for a week time when he got admission in the same course in Anna University A.C. College of Technology and thereafter shifted from the opposite party’s college to Anna University A.C. College of Technology.   Further the complainant informed the opposite party he was withdrawing from college on 13^th July 2006 before the cut off date namely 21^st July 2006 as stipulated in the prospectus.  Since the complainant had withdrawn from the institution before the afore-mentioned cut off date, the opposite party was liable to refund the fees collected from the complainant.   Accordingly the complainant’s parents had sent letters to the opposite party requesting to refund of the above said fees.   But in response the opposite party refunded only a sum of Rs.1500/-.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.   

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties state that the Registrar of the university is not within the jurisdiction  of this forum and therefore the application is not maintainable at Chennai.   It is admitted by the complainant that he left the institution on his own as he secured admission at Anna University.   There is a specific provision in the prospectus that if the student leaves after admission the fee will not be refunded.  In fact the university has a right to recover the entire course fee from the student.   The provision in the prospectus is binding on the student and the said provision has been suppressed by the complainant.   The validity of the said provision also cannot be considered by this Forum as already decided by National Commission.  The opposite party also state that the vacancy caused by the complainant is still vacant and the complainant has caused a loss to the University.  The cut off date in the application has not relevance as the seat remains vacant.  When an advocate notice was received the opposite party has sent a reply dated 23.7.2007 explaining the position.    The opposite party is a deemed to be University and is not under the control of AICTE and therefore the AICTE circular have no relevancy to Deemed University.   There is a tendency among the students to jump from institutions to institutions thereby causing loss to the institution.  Hence a specific clause is introduced in the prospectus itself.    The opposite party further state that  the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer by any standard and the opposite party is not covered by the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.51,850/- paid towards fees as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant  is entitled to a sum of Rsw.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for ?

5.  POINTS 1   & 2  :

        Both parties field their respective written arguments.   Perused the records  (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   Admittedly the complainant was admitted as student of M.Tech (Integrated) Industrial Biotechnology course in the year 2006 on merits as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.  Since the complainant was successfull in getting admission in the Anna University B. Tech Industrial Bio Technology on merit through entrance examination (TNPCEE), the complainant was constrained to withdraw the admission given by the opposite party college within one week and joined Anna University.  Hence the complainant  requested to refund the fees paid to the opposite party college as per Ex.A4.   Further the complainant contended that the opposite party college rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that “ fees once paid cannot be refunded under any circumstances and that it had been made clear in the prospectus”.  Thereafter the complainant attempted to convince the opposite party to refund the fees on the basis of the circular issued by All India Technical Education Council and Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamilnadu.

Following complaints by students and parents to the HRD ministry, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has directed engineering colleges countrywide to refund fees of students if don’t join the course or leave midway and return their certificate. ….

The regulatory body, has included a clause in “AICTE approval process handbook 2017-2018’ which directs engineering institutes to refund the fees collected from the students if the seat falling vacant is subsequently filled by another candidate by the last date of admission.  A processing fee of up to Rs.1000 can be levied by the institute and proportionate monthly fee and hostel rent can be charged.

6.   Further the complainant contended that the opposite parties contention regarding the jurisdiction and the refund of fees once paid cannot be refunded are  baseless and against the settled principles that students are consumer under Consumer Protection.

Civil Appeal Nos.7003-7004 of 2015

(Special Leave to Appeal © No.(s). 2523-2524/2003)

P. Sreenivasulu & Anr

.Vs..

P.J. Alexander & Anr.

Held that

The National Commission preferred to rely on the decision of the Madras High Court rather than its earlier decision rendered in Bhupesh Khurana (Supra).

It has been brought to our notice that an appeal was filed against the order of the National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana and the decision in the appeal is reported as Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurans & Ors. [ (2009) 4 SCC 473].   The view expressed by the National Commission was upheld by this Court in the aforesaid decision.

Under the circumstances, an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the decision rendered by the Madras High Court would no longer be good law.  Under the circumstances, we hold that the complaint filed before the State Commission was maintainable.

Accordingly we set aside the judgment and order dated 12.9.2002 passed by the National Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission for its decision on merits.

7.   The contention of the opposite parties is that in the General Instructions of the application it has been clearly stated in the column No.6 “fees  once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances.   The candidate should pay entire program fee minus whatever has been already paid, if she / he discontinues the program anytime after the commencement”.  The joint declaration by the Applicant/ Parent / Guardian  was given under :

“I hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm that the statement made and the information furnished by me in the application as also in enclosures thereto submitted by me are true.  Should it, however, be found that any information  furnished therein is untrue in material particulars or on verification at a later stage, I am liable for criminal prosecution and I also agree to forego my seat in this Institution / for the removal of my name from the rolls of the institution at whatever stage of study I may be at the time of detection of such wrong particulars.  I am also fully aware of the general instructions and I am bound by the same.  “

Besides at the time of counseling itself the refund policy of university was informed to every parents and students as not refunded.  It is a common practice followed by the states in the Medical college counseling to  obtain a signed agreement by every students and parent.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended the students are not consumer and cited the decision reported in  that in  2003 (VI) SCC  has held that “if an institution feels that any particular student to give a bond/bank guarantee that  the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student leaves midstream”.  

2010 (II) SCC Page 159

MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

..Vs..

SURJEET KAUR

          A consumer Protection – Consumer / Consumer dispute / Locus standi – Generally – University – If covered – Direction to issue Bed degree against rules of examination – Legality – Held, respondent as a student is neither consumer nor University is rendering any service to its students – Hence, Consumer For a have no jurisdiction.

8.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2  are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.51,850/- (Rupees Fifty one thousand eight hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint (i.e.) 26.5.2008 to till the date of this order (i.e) 2.3.2018 and also shall pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-   for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2  are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.51,850/- (Rupees Fifty one thousand eight hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint (i.e.) 26.5.2008 to till the date of this order (i.e) 2.3.2018 and also shall pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 2^nd  day of March 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 11.6.2006 - Copy of call letter for counseling.

Ex.A2- 23.6.2006 - Copy of admission letter and fee receipt.

Ex.A3- 12.7.2006 - Copy of withdrawal letter from the father of the
                             complainant.

Ex.A4- 13.7.2006 - Copy of transfer certificate.

Ex.A5- 13.7.2006 - Copy of conduct certificate.

Ex.A6- 16.4.2007 – Copy of AICTE certificate to technical institutions.

Ex.A7- 17.4.2007 - Copy of Public notice by AICTE.

Ex.A8- 17.4.2007 - Copy of AICTE circular.

Ex.A9- 23.4.2007 - Copy of letter from the complainant to opp. party.

Ex.A10-           - Copy of letter from the complainant’s father to the opp.

                           party.  

Ex.A11-           - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A12- 23.7.2007- Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A13- 11.5.2008- Copy of University Advertisement.

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:   

Ex.B1-                - Copy of General instructions.

Ex.B2-                - Copy of M.Tech 5 year integrated programme in Industrial

                              Bio-technology.

 

Ex.B3- 23.7.2007  - Copy of legal notice.

 

Ex.B4- 27.4.2007  - Copy of reply notice.

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.