This C.C. came up before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Upender Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.H.Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri. Vijay Kumar, President)
1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 -A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 24% P.A. from 18-7-2007 to the date of realization and also claiming Rs.15,000/- towards damages and for claiming costs.
2. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant appeared EM-CET entrance examination in the year, 2007. The complainant had applied for Computer Science Engineering seat to the counseling centre at Hyderabad and thereafter she decided to return to Khammam. The complainant came to know that there was variance in Computer Science Engineering in management quota at opposite party college. On 18-7-2007 the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the variance in Computer Science Engineering and enquired about fee structure. The opposite party has demanded the complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of tuition fee for 1st year C.S.E. to reserve the seat in C.S.E. On the same day the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- and the opposite party issued a receipt vide No.1368, dt.18-7-2007. On the date of payment, the opposite party did not give admission to the complainant. The opposite party informed to the complainant that in case if she gets seat in C.S.E. in another college, the opposite party shall refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-.
3. Subsequently, the complainant got admission in Vazir Sulthan Engineering College, Khammam. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant made many rounds around the opposite party for refund of the said amount, but the opposite party did not refund the same, by postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, the father of the complainant got issued a legal notice on 18-6-2008. Having acknowledged the said notice, the opposite party did not choose to neither reply to the notice nor to refund the amount. No seat for the academic year 2007-08 for computer science Engineering Branch in opposite party college was remained unfilled. This act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
4. On presenting the complaint, a notice is ordered to the opposite party. Having received the notice, the opposite party engaged Sri.H.Sree Rama Rao, Advocate, Khammam and filed the counter.
5. In the counter the opposite party has denied all the averments made in the complaint. The opposite party admits that the complainant approached them on 18-7-2007 and enquired about the vacancies and also about the fee structure and also admits that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.1368 dated 18-7-2007. The opposite party denied that it was informed to the complainant that in case if she gets seat in C.S.E. in any other college, they will refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- and also denied that the complainant paid the said amount towards reservation of the seat. The opposite party is not aware whether the complainant got admission in Vazir Sulthan Engineering College. The opposite party admits that the complainant approached and requested them to return the amount paid by her and it also admits that the opposite party did not pay the deposited amount to the complainant. It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant has to approach the Civil Court for redressal of grievance. The complainant is liable to pay loss incurred by the opposite party, due to non payment of balance of tuition fee for 3 years and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant has filed her chief affidavit and also marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is receipt bearing No.1368, dt.18-7-2007 for the payment of Rs.50,000/-, Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.18-6-2008 and Ex.A.3 is Xerox copy of courier receipt and courier delivery run sheet.
7. On the other hand, no affidavit is filed on behalf of the opposite party and no documents are marked. On behalf of the complainant, written arguments filed.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence, upon which the points that arose for consideration are,
1. Whether the non refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- by the opposite party
amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to ask for any damages?
3. To what relief?
Points No.1 and 2:
9. The case of the complainant is that she paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of tuition fee for 1st year Computer Science Engineering and got reserved the seat. On this aspect of the case, she refers Ex.A.1, Receipt, which was issued by the opposite party. Thereafter, she got admission in the Vazir Sulthan Engineering College, Khammam, and she approached the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the opposite party did not refund the amount. On the other hand, it is the case of the opposite party that on account of non taking of the admission into the opposite party college, it incurred loss of tuition fee for 3 years and no promise is made by the opposite party for refund of the said amount in case if the complainant gets admission in another college. The amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant is towards part payment of 1st year tuition fee, but not for deposit or in any other manner. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there are 3 to 4 seats still vacant in the opposite party college. It can be safely believed that in non taking admission by the complainant, the opposite party college has not incurred any loss, because still some more vacancies were in the college. Therefore, it became clear that the opposite party had not suffered any loss because some vacancies were kept for the relevant year. On this aspect of the case, the U.G.C. has received several complaints against various colleges and institutions about the unhealthy practices indulged by them in non refunding the fees of the students, who had for some reason or the other had to discontinue/withdraw from the institute and had secured admission in some other college/institute. The U.G.C. had issued public notice, wherein it is instructed to maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of students withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. 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 to the student withdrawing from the programme. The U.G.C. has further requested the institutions to abide by the instructions. In the present case, the complainant has not utilized the services of opposite party college. In the light of the instructions of U.G.C., she is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by her. The opposite party is also entitled to deduct the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards processing fee and the remaining amount of Rs.49,000/- has to be refunded to the complainant.
Point No.3:
10. In the light of the above observation, the complaint is allowed, the opposite party is directed to deduct the amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards processing fee and refund the amount of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) to the complainant together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit. Since the complainant herself voluntarily withdrawn from seeking the admission, she is not entitled to any kind of compensation. No costs.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum on this the 20th day of January, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for complainant:
-None-
Witnesses examined for the opposite party:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A.1 is receipt bearing No.1368, dt.18-7-2007 for Rs.50,000/-,
Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.18-6-2008
Ex.A.3 is Xerox copy of courier receipt and courier delivery run sheet.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:
- Nil -
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
This C.C. came up before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Upender Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.H.Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri. Vijay Kumar, President)
1. This complaint is filed u/s.12 -A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 24% P.A. from 18-7-2007 to the date of realization and also claiming Rs.15,000/- towards damages and for claiming costs.
2. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant appeared EM-CET entrance examination in the year, 2007. The complainant had applied for Computer Science Engineering seat to the counseling centre at Hyderabad and thereafter she decided to return to Khammam. The complainant came to know that there was variance in Computer Science Engineering in management quota at opposite party college. On 18-7-2007 the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the variance in Computer Science Engineering and enquired about fee structure. The opposite party has demanded the complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of tuition fee for 1st year C.S.E. to reserve the seat in C.S.E. On the same day the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- and the opposite party issued a receipt vide No.1368, dt.18-7-2007. On the date of payment, the opposite party did not give admission to the complainant. The opposite party informed to the complainant that in case if she gets seat in C.S.E. in another college, the opposite party shall refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-.
3. Subsequently, the complainant got admission in Vazir Sulthan Engineering College, Khammam. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant made many rounds around the opposite party for refund of the said amount, but the opposite party did not refund the same, by postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, the father of the complainant got issued a legal notice on 18-6-2008. Having acknowledged the said notice, the opposite party did not choose to neither reply to the notice nor to refund the amount. No seat for the academic year 2007-08 for computer science Engineering Branch in opposite party college was remained unfilled. This act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
4. On presenting the complaint, a notice is ordered to the opposite party. Having received the notice, the opposite party engaged Sri.H.Sree Rama Rao, Advocate, Khammam and filed the counter.
5. In the counter the opposite party has denied all the averments made in the complaint. The opposite party admits that the complainant approached them on 18-7-2007 and enquired about the vacancies and also about the fee structure and also admits that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.1368 dated 18-7-2007. The opposite party denied that it was informed to the complainant that in case if she gets seat in C.S.E. in any other college, they will refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- and also denied that the complainant paid the said amount towards reservation of the seat. The opposite party is not aware whether the complainant got admission in Vazir Sulthan Engineering College. The opposite party admits that the complainant approached and requested them to return the amount paid by her and it also admits that the opposite party did not pay the deposited amount to the complainant. It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant has to approach the Civil Court for redressal of grievance. The complainant is liable to pay loss incurred by the opposite party, due to non payment of balance of tuition fee for 3 years and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant has filed her chief affidavit and also marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is receipt bearing No.1368, dt.18-7-2007 for the payment of Rs.50,000/-, Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.18-6-2008 and Ex.A.3 is Xerox copy of courier receipt and courier delivery run sheet.
7. On the other hand, no affidavit is filed on behalf of the opposite party and no documents are marked. On behalf of the complainant, written arguments filed.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence, upon which the points that arose for consideration are,
1. Whether the non refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- by the opposite party
amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to ask for any damages?
3. To what relief?
Points No.1 and 2:
9. The case of the complainant is that she paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of tuition fee for 1st year Computer Science Engineering and got reserved the seat. On this aspect of the case, she refers Ex.A.1, Receipt, which was issued by the opposite party. Thereafter, she got admission in the Vazir Sulthan Engineering College, Khammam, and she approached the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the opposite party did not refund the amount. On the other hand, it is the case of the opposite party that on account of non taking of the admission into the opposite party college, it incurred loss of tuition fee for 3 years and no promise is made by the opposite party for refund of the said amount in case if the complainant gets admission in another college. The amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant is towards part payment of 1st year tuition fee, but not for deposit or in any other manner. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there are 3 to 4 seats still vacant in the opposite party college. It can be safely believed that in non taking admission by the complainant, the opposite party college has not incurred any loss, because still some more vacancies were in the college. Therefore, it became clear that the opposite party had not suffered any loss because some vacancies were kept for the relevant year. On this aspect of the case, the U.G.C. has received several complaints against various colleges and institutions about the unhealthy practices indulged by them in non refunding the fees of the students, who had for some reason or the other had to discontinue/withdraw from the institute and had secured admission in some other college/institute. The U.G.C. had issued public notice, wherein it is instructed to maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of students withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. 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 to the student withdrawing from the programme. The U.G.C. has further requested the institutions to abide by the instructions. In the present case, the complainant has not utilized the services of opposite party college. In the light of the instructions of U.G.C., she is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by her. The opposite party is also entitled to deduct the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards processing fee and the remaining amount of Rs.49,000/- has to be refunded to the complainant.
Point No.3:
10. In the light of the above observation, the complaint is allowed, the opposite party is directed to deduct the amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards processing fee and refund the amount of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) to the complainant together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit. Since the complainant herself voluntarily withdrawn from seeking the admission, she is not entitled to any kind of compensation. No costs.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum on this the 20th day of January, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for complainant:
-None-
Witnesses examined for the opposite party:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A.1 is receipt bearing No.1368, dt.18-7-2007 for Rs.50,000/-,
Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.18-6-2008
Ex.A.3 is Xerox copy of courier receipt and courier delivery run sheet.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:
- Nil -
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMEBR
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
