Date   : 29.11.2012.

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2008 passed by Dist.Forum Ahmednagar in C.C.No.212/2007 whereby the said complaint is dismissed.

2.       The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under.

          Appellant herein, in the complaint made allegations in brief that his daughter Megha Sharma had taken admission in medical college of opponent No.1 by initially paying fees of Rs.50,000/- on 2.7.2004 and thereafter he paid balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 12.7.2004 to opponent No.1.  However his daughter Megha Sharma got cancelled her aforesaid provisional admission as she got admission at Pune in another college and he therefore requested opponent No.1 to refund fees paid by him.  Opponent No.1 refunded only Rs.22,442/-.  Thereafter he(complainant) wrote various letters to the opponent No.1 requesting it to refund balance amount of Rs.1,53,000/-.  Opponent No.1 sent reply on 20.4.2006 that the balance fees cannot be refunded.  Lastly complainant served legal notice dated 13.1.2007 to opponent No.1 & 2.  Even after receiving notice  they did not refund the balance amount. Therefore complainant by filing complaint requested that opponent No.1 & 2 may be directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,52,158/- with interest to him and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint.

3.       Both the opponents filed written version and thereby opposed the claim. They admitted that complainant`s daughter Megha Sharma was admitted in opponent No.1`s medical college and she paid fees as stated in the complaint.  They submitted that said Megha Sharma after taking admission attended classes from 27.7.2004 to 1.09.2004 and on 2.9.2004 she gave information regarding cancellation of her said admission. They further stated that as per rules and regulations made for admission, she is not entitled to refund after cancellation of her admission after the date 23.8.2004.  They further submitted that Dist.Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and complainant is not consumer.  There is no deficiency on their part.  They thus submitted that complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

4.       Dist.Forum below after having considered the evidence brought on record and after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that as per rules framed and published by opponent, if admission is cancelled on or after 23.8.2004, student who cancelled the admission is not entitled for any refund of the fees. It also observed that such rules are framed in accordance with law and that as the admission of complainant`s daughter was cancelled on 9.2.2004 i.e. after 23.8.2004, opponents are not liable to refund the fees paid by the complainant and therefore it dismissed the complaint.

5.       Adv.Shri.S.G.Karlekar appearing for appellant submitted that the rules relied upon by the opponents referred to in the impugned judgment and order were not made part of brochure supplied to appellant`s  daughter  and they were also not properly communicated to the student.  Therefore they are not binding upon appellant or his daughter. He further submitted that the forfeiture of entire fees of the appellant`s daughter is illegal and Dist.Forum has not considered these material aspects of the case and erroneously dismissed the complaint. He therefore submitted that appeal may be allowed and relief as sought in the complaint may be granted.

6.       Adv.Shri.A.D.Shinde appearing for respondent submitted that the rules are lawfully framed and were duly published on the notice board and they are binding on all students of the college and now appellant  cannot take stand that his daughter had no knowledge about those rules. He further submitted that complainant had taken admission in the college after knowing rules and therefore Dist.Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint.

7.       It is thus not disputed that rules were framed by opponents about the payment of the fees and about refund of fees in case of cancellation of the payment. It is provided in said rules that in case of cancellation of admission by student on or before 1.8.2004, 25% fees will be deducted and in case of cancellation of admission from 2.8.2004 to 22.8.2004, 30% of the fees will be deducted and in case of cancellation of admission from 23.8.2004 to 4.9.2004, there will be no refund of fees.  It is also seen that said information was duly published on the notice board of opponent No.1 college.  Hence it can be said that appellant  and his daughter had knowledge about the said rules. They have also not pleaded in the complaint that they had no knowledge about any such rules framed by opponent No.1.  Moreover in the written version, it is stated by respondents that after the admission was taken by complainant`s daughter, she attended the college from 27.4.2004 to 1.9.2004 and she cancelled admission on 2.9.2004.  This fact is not disputed by the appellant.  It is not disputed that respondent refunded  security deposit of Rs.22,412/- only out of total fees paid by the appellant.  In our view the said fees is refunded as per aforesaid rules framed by respondent No.1 in accordance with law. Appellant in the appeal memo itself in ground No.2 admitted that the said rules of admission were displayed on notice board of the college.  However plea is raised for first time in appeal memo that those rules that they were not communicated to appellant`s daughter and appellant.  In our view in such a case, communication of said rules is not required when said rules were duly published on the notice board of the college.  Moreover it is not ground for refund of remaining fees that some other student might have taken admission in place of complainant`s daughter after the said admission was cancelled by her. There is no rule in support of the ground that if any student takes admission on cancellation  of admission of certain student, then entire fees of student should be refunded after said cancellation of that admission.  Hence we hold that Dist.Forum below has rightly come to the conclusion as stated above. We find no deficiency on the part of respondent in service provided to the appellant  or his daughter. Hence appeal deserves to be dismissed.

                                                 O   R    D    E     R

1.                 Appeal is dismissed. 

2.                 No order as to cost.

3.                 Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Pronounced on 29.11.2012.