Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

182/2008

B.Janakiraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vice Principal , Bharathi Institute & others - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Filing  : 23.04.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 12.04.2018

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (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

                                     

C.C. NO.182 /2008

THURSDAY THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

1. Mr. B. Janakiraman,

S/o. Late G. Balasubramanian Iyer,

2. Mr. J. Boopathi,

S/o. Mr. B. Janakiraman,

Both residing at:-

No.T1-45, NCL Colony,

P.O. Singrauli - 486 889,

Sidhi District,

Madhya Pradesh.                                               .. Complainants.

                                                            ..Vs..

 

1. The Vice Principal,

Bharat Institute of Higher Education &

Research (Deemed University),

Agaram Main Road, (Camp Road),

MGR Nagar,

Selaiyur,

Chennai – 600 073.

 

2. The Secretary,

Bharat Institute of Higher Education & Research,

No.1, First Main Road

Kasturi Bai Nagar,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                            ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainants               :  Mr. K. Ganesan

Counsel for opposite parties            :  M/s. Venkatesh Mahadevan &     

                                                              others

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of a sum of Rs.70,000/- being the donation with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, physical strain and stress in view of the gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties with cost.

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

                The complainants approached the opposite parties in the 1^st week of June 2006 for admission of the 2^nd complainant in B.Tech (Information Technology) for the Academic year 2006-2007.    The opposite parties demanded the complainants to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as donation.   Accordingly, the 1^st complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 10.06.2006 with the 2^nd opposite party by cash.   The 2^nd opposite party directed the 1^st complainant to pay the balance donation amount of Rs.60,000/- within 10 to 15 days at the office of the 1^st opposite party.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party paid the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- by cash on 18.06.2006 and the 1^st opposite party has also issued admission card favouring the 2^nd complainant for the first year B.Tech Degree Course on Information Technology for the year 2006 -2007.  The 1^st opposite party while issuing the said Card also informed the complainants that he will intimate the complainants about the commencement of the session. 

2.       After a week, the 2^nd complainant got admission in Madhya Pradesh and so the 1^st complainant admitted the 2^nd complainant in Jabalpur Government College itself.  That fact was informed by the 1^st complainant to the opposite parties over phone immediately and demanded refund of Rs.70,000/-.  To get refund of the said amount the complainants introduced one Mr. Sublek Kumar another candidate in the place of the 2^nd complainant on the fond hope that the opposite parties will refund the said donation amount but they were evading to give proper reply.   The 2^nd complainant sent letters dated 07.08.2006 and 03.11.2006 for refund of the said donation amount.    But the opposite parties failed and neglected to refund the donation amount of Rs.70,000/-. The complainants sent a legal notice dated:08.09.2007 to the opposite parties.  The cover containing the notice addressed to the 2^nd opposite party has been returned undelivered.  Though the 1^st opposite party received the notice he neither replied nor paid the amount due to the complainant till date.  Therefore the complainant was put to great mental agony, physical strain and stress in view of the gross negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is filed.

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

                The opposite parties deny each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is true that the 1^st complainant approached the office of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research at Adyar, seeking admission to B. Tech (Information Technology) for the 2^nd complainant.  The 1^st complainant never paid any cash in the office of the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.   The said institute is primarily utilized for easy access to prospective students who seek an admission in any of the courses offered by Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.  In the above college the mark sheet of the students are perused to assess the candidate’s basic qualification and thereafter, depending on their percentage of marks, the candidate is offered various courses in Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.   Once the candidate has been decided to join the course offered they are required to fill up an application form for admission and upon which, the candidate is issued an admission card.   The candidate should thereafter pay the actual annual tuition fee for the respective courses by Demand Draft in the name of the Registrar, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research and the same should be remitted in the office of the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research at Camp Road, Selayur, Chennai.

4.     The allegation that the 1^st complainant informed the office of Bharath institute of Higher Education and Research overphone that the 2^nd complainant had secured admission at Madhya Pradesh and that the opposite parties have agreed to refund the alleged sum of Rs.70,000/- is false and the same is denied.  The complainants never paid any cash or the opposite parties never received any donation for offering admission to any of their courses.  The 2^nd complainant was issued an Admission card to enroll in B.Tech (Information Technology) and directed to pay the Annual Tuition fee as detailed supra.  Whereas the complainants never paid the Tuition fee and instead informed the office of  the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research that the 2^nd complainant had secured admission at Madhya Pradesh and that he was not interested in pursuing the course at Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.

5.     The averments are denied that the complainant gave an application for refund of the donation of Rs.70,000/- on 07.08.2006. The letter dated:03.11.2006 allegedly sent by Registered Post by the complainants is addressed to “The Secretary, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Adyar, Chennai” but in the proof of posting found at the end of the said letter the recipient is shown as “The Secretary, B I N E, Chennai, PIN 600073”. It is obvious that the said letter was therefore not served on the proper office of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.   The complainants have not produced any valid proof what so ever to show that they have paid the alleged sum of Rs.70,000/- to the alleged opposite parties as donation, to secure a seat in B Tech (Information Technology), whereas the entire complaint mere proceeds on the presumption and bald allegations.  The complaint is therefore unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.

6.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties not filed within the stipulated time and hence it was closed.

7.      The point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

8.      On point:

Both parties had not adduced any oral argument.  Written arguments of the complainants filed.  The opposite parties had not filed any proof affidavit to prove the contentions in the written version.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of complainants and documents etc.   The contention of the complainants is that during the first week of June 2006, the 1^st complainant along with the 2^nd complainant approached the opposite parties for the admission of the 2^nd complainant in B.Tech (Information Technology) for the academic year 2006-2007.    After due negotiation, and discussions with the officials of the opposite parties and on the instruction of the opposite parties, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as donation for admission.  On 10.06.2006, the complainants paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cash towards such admission.  The balance amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid on 18.06.2006 by way of cash.  The opposite parties had not issued any receipt.  Ex.A3 is the admission card.  Meanwhile, the 2^nd complainant got admission in Jabalpur Government College, Madhya Pradesh.  Immediately, the complainants informed the opposite parties and requested to refund the donation amount of Rs.70,000/-.  Since the opposite parties had not refunded the donation amount, the complainants sent letters Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 for which also, the opposite parties has not responded.  Hence the complainant issued legal notices  as per Ex.A3 and filed this case. 

9.     But on a careful perusal of the records, it is apparently seen that the complainants alleged payment of Rs.70,000/- by way of cash to the opposite parties is not proved by way of any document.  Equally, the complainants has not demanded any receipt for such a huge amount; establishes that the alleged payment has not been proved.  The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the 1^st complainant approached the office of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Adyar seeking admission to B.Tech (Information Technology) for the 2^nd complainant.  The 1^st complainant  never paid any cash in the office of the Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.  Further the opposite parties contended that the procedure for admission to any of the courses offered by the institution is only based on the marks and perusal of records including certificate and the admissions will be offered on the basis of percentage of marks.  The candidates also shall fill up the application form for admission and upon which, the candidate will be issued an admission card.  Ex.A4 is the admission card of the 2^nd complainant.  It is very clear that, the 2^nd complainant is provisionally selected for the course.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is, that the allegation of payment of Rs.70,000/- towards donation is absolutely false.  The complainant never paid any cash to the opposite parties.   The office of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research never received any donation and the payment shall be only by way of Demand Draft in the name of the Registrar, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research.  The cash payment never be accepted.  The 2^nd complainant even after the issuance of provisional admission card has not come forward to pay the prescribed tuition fees.  The complainants also has not taken substantial steps to prove the alleged payment of Rs.70,000/- towards donation.  Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice pleaded proved in the complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, this complaint shall be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	30.11.2006	Letter by the 1st complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A2	07.08.2006	Copy of letter by the 2nd complainant
Ex.A3	08.09.2007	Copy of legal notice by the Counsel for the Complainant with acknowledgement card
Ex.A4		Copy of the admission card

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  Closed.

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT