DATE OF FILING : 12/10/17

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of January 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 214/2017

Between

Complainant       :   Amal Scaria, S/o Scaria,

                                                                             Kochuparambil House,

                                                                             Murickassery P.O., Munnam Block, 

                                                                             Vathikudi Village, Idukki Taluk.

(By Adv:  George Thomas)

And

Opposite Party                                     :   1 . The Superintendent, 

                                                                         Government College Kattappana,

                                                                         Kattappana P.O., Idukki Taluk.

                                                                   2 . The Principal, 

                                                                         Government College, Kattappana P.O., 

                                                                         Kattappana Village, Idukki Taluk.

                                                                   3 . The President, 

                                                                         Parent Teachers Association, 

                                                                         Government College, Kattappana P.O., 

                                                                         Kattappana Village, Idukki Taluk.

                                                                   4 . Mrs. Mollukutty,

                                                                        Section Clerk, Government College, 

                                                                         Kattappana P.O., Kattappana Village,

                                                                        Idukki Taluk.

                                                                  5 .  Mr. Naushad, 

                                                                         Section Clerk, Government College, 

                                                                         Kattappana P.O., Kattappana Village,

                                                                         Idukki Taluk.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

The complainant was a student of Govt. College, Kattappana and he sought admission for the Post Graduate Course with other colleges also for the 2017 intake on sports quota.  Everywhere in the state of Kerala Mahatma Gandhi  University  granted  only  one   day   ie,  28/07/17   for   the   admission

                                                                                                                           (Cont....2)

-2-

of sports quota, and it was a spot admission.  It means that anyone took admission in any one of the college,  all other opportunities opened to him will be closed on the same day itself.  The petitioner had got admission in Pavanathma College, Murickassery, and Govt. College, Kattappana.  As a former student, the petitioner sought admission in Govt. College, Kattappana.  After the admission  the matter has to be informed to the Physical Education  department also.  While so, the 5th opposite party called the petitioner, and as per his instruction the complainant along with his parent approached the first opposite party and remitted the prescribed fees, for this purpose opposite parties collected fees from the complainant in the following structure of Collegiate Education, Kerala. 

 

For the first M.Com University fees Rs.703/- as per receipt No.092443, Casual Education fees 600/-,  Special fee Rs.10/-.  For admission Rs.1313/- and issued admission number as 9924/-, Rs.1000/- for  college development fund, Rs.4000/- for first year M.Com PTA fund for the year 2017-18, Rs.50/- fees for identity card, for all these payments,  the  opposite parties issued receipts also.  After obtaining admission there, when the complainant went for attending classes in the college on 18th  September 2017, the opposite parties informed him that he has no chance for the M.Com P.G.Course, and his admission is cancelled.  At that time the teacher, who was taught him, advised that there are chances to get three more seats, on Marginal Increase of seats, if the college file application and proceeds forthwith.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the M.G. University authorities for the marginal Increasement of seats for the M.Com course, at that time they informed that, if the respective application forwarded to the university in time from the college and makes payment accordingly, they consider it positively.  Immediately the petitioner approached the opposite parties and informed this fact, and the opposite parties made sure that they will proceed for it immediately. 

 

But when the complainant enquired about the further proceedings in this matter, he got reliable information that the opposite parties failed to do anything  in this matter and hence the complainant lost the opportunity.  This happened to the irresponsible and  negligent act of the opposite parties.  This caused much mental agony to the complainant.  He further stated that the act of the opposite parties after receiving registration fees from the complainant for  the  first  year  M.Com  course,  and  after  issuing  the  admission  number,        

                                                                                                                           (Cont....3)

-3-

the deniel of seat, badly affected his valuable time.  The act of the opposite parties are the gross deficiency in their service and the complainant is entitled to get adequate compensation from opposite parties, since opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for that.  Through this complaint, complainant prayed for allowing relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of one academic year, further        Rs.One Lakh towards mental agony and further direct to pay Rs.one Lakh for the loss of Marginal Increasement of seats and  direct to pay cost of the petitioner.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version denying the averrment in the complaint.  In their version opposite parties further contented that, during the academic  year 2017-2018, there was only one seat under sports quota in the opposite party's college as the sanctioned strength for the then existing two post graduate courses ie, M.Com and M.A. (Malayalam). During the current academic year 2017-2018, two more Post Graduate courses ie, MA (Economic) and Msc (Chemistry) with a sanctioned strength of 27 (15+12) students started with the University Affiliation, increasing the total strength  of student of Post Graduate Courses by 51 for which the opposite party's college is eligible for 2 seats under sports quota.  But, on verification of the admission portal of the opposite parties college, it is found that only one seat was allotted to this college under sports quota, as the new Post Graduate course was not incorporated/uploaded in the portal of university.  Immediately this fact was reported to the university.  Since as per para 2.1.5 of the prospectus for PG admission issued by the MG University, it is understood that this college is eligible for 2 seats under sports quota.   Presumed by that the opposite parties  prepared and published sports list in the notice board of the college of which the complainant stands the  second rank and the first rank holder was one Anju Joy, for the admission of the PG course for the academic year 2017-2018.  So on 28/07/17, the only date allotted by the university for admission under sports quota, the opposite parties collected the fees due towards MG University from the complainant,and remitted the same to the MG University, by on line.  

 

Opposite parties further contented that though the fee due to MG University was remitted by on line in time, due to the non- availability of MG Univeristy site, the only admission that could  be  successfully  uploaded to the

                                                                                                                          (Cont....4)

-4-

MG University portal was that of the complainant Amal Scaria.  This matter was reported to the University on 28th, 29th and 31st of July 2017.  In response, the University informed that the further admission process  left with could be done on 16/08/17.  It was only then that the University informed the opposite parties college that only one seat was allotted to this college under sprots quota and that the admission of the complainant could not be accepted as he was the second in the sports quota rank list.  So as per the direction of the  University, complainant's admission was cancelled and the first rank holder's admission was confirmed.  Immediately on that day itself this matter was informed to the complainant.  As it was  a serious one, these opposite parties again taken up the matter directly with the Vice -Chancellor and their  attempts were in vain.  More over there is no relation to the admission of the complainant under sports quota that of the Marginal Increase of seats of this institution.  There is a specific guidelines of the University for filling up  the Marginal Increase of seats if they are sanctioned, it is based on merit in scoring of marks in the qualifying degree and not on sports merit.

 

The opposite parties further contented that they have done all the action in favour of the complainant.  It is the University which rejected the admission of the complainant on the ground of sports quota, and hence these opposite parties are not liable for the act of the University, more over University is not a party in this petition.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P4   were marked.  Ext.P1 is the receipt dated 28/07/17, Ext.P2 is the receipt No.1134, Ext.P3 is the receipt No.1069 for Rs.4000/-, Ext.P4 is the receipt No.092448 dated 28/07/17.  From the defence side  no oral or documentary evidence is produced.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

                                                                                                                          (Cont....5)

-5-

The Point:- We have carefully considered the argument advanced by the learned counsels of the both sides and have examined the materials on record.  On going through the evidence we convinced that opposite parties admitted the complainant in M.Com course in their college after receiving all the prescribed fees.  The Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 clearly shows that the remittance of fees for first year, M.Com PG course in various heads, including PTA and identity card.  But on the date of starting of class, the opposite parties denied to admit the complainant on the sole reason that, the University cancelled his admission.  For that, the learned counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that the respondents admitted the complainant on 28/07/17 itself and admission process of the complainant was successfully uploaded to the University on that day itself.  But later these respondent was forced to cancel the admission in respect of the petitioner as per the direction of the University.  The University has rejected the admission of the complainant on the ground of merits in sports quota, and it is unknown as to why the complainant has not included the M.G. University as additional opposite parties in this case.

 

Even though the respondents lengthy stated the admission process and the reason for rejection the admission of the complainant not a scrap of evidence is produced before the Forum to strengthen their plea.  Opposite parties further stated that, on the day when they got information of the rejection of the admission of the complainant from the University, they informed the matter to the complainant on that day itself.  But for this matter also opposite parties failed to produce any evidence.  If the admission is cancelled by the University, it is the bounder duty of the opposite parties to convince or intimate the matter in black and white to the complainant.  Here after accepting all the fees as per the norms of the University and college cancelling the admission without having a reasonable cause will cause much mental agony and irreparable loss to the student.  In this case the complainant lost his valuable one year, and it affected badly in his future.

 

In their version opposite parties categorically stated that the University is solely responsible all their acts, and the complainant is ought to include the University as on additional opposite parties.

 

In this case, even though the opposite parties pointed out that, the University was  cancelled  the admission of the complainant on the ground that

                                                                                                                           (Cont....6)

-6-

only one seat was allotted in the sports quota and the first rank holder was admitted to that seat, no picee of evidence is adduced by the opposite parties to convince that the M.G. University is solely liable for all this mishaps.  Since no evidence produced to corroborate the contention in the reply version, by connecting the M.G. University for shifting the liability  of the opposite parties to the M.G. University, no question of non-jointer of necessary party arises or complainant is not liable to add the M.G. University as an additional opposite parties.

 

On going through the evidence the Forum further convinced that, the opposite parties has not took any effort to return the fees which they collected from the complainant as per Ext.P1 to Ext.P4.  Opposite parties has not initiated any proceedings to retain the admission of the complainant.

 

By considering the evidence as a whole, the Forum is of a considered view that, the act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and suffering to the complainant and the act of the opposite parties amount to gross deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint allowed.  Opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to return the fees collected from the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. One Lakh and cost of Rs.5000/- jointly to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which this amount stated above in different heads shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default  till the realization. 

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2019.

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                      SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                         (Cont....7)

-7-

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - Amal Scaria

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The receipt dated 28/07/17

Ext.P2            -  The receipt No.1134

Ext.P3            -  The receipt No.1069 for Rs.4000/-

Ext.P4          -  The receipt No.092448 dated 28/07/17 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

              Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT