Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to award Rs.1,80,000/- with interest on the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- @24% p.a from the date of payment till the realization against opposite party and in favour of complainant. 

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

Complainant’s daughters viz., Anjali and Gitanjali completed their intermediate education (M.P.C) in the year 2010 and they appeared for EAMCET examination for admission into Engineering course.  Before announcement of results of EAMCET examination complainant admitted his daughters in B.Tech Engineering course CSC and ECE respectively in opposite party university on 23-07-10.  Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- towards registration fee; Rs.7,500/- towards hostel registration; Rs.5,000/- towards hostel admission fee and Rs.35,000/- i.e. in all Rs.52,500/- towards advance tuition fee for each of his daughters on 23-07-10 and opposite party issued receipts to that effect.  The complainant’s daughters being resident scholars attended the classes for one month twenty days from 23-07-10.  Subsequently EAMCET results were announced and the daughters of complainant secured ranks and they got admission in Rajahmundry and Bhimavaram.  The complainant availed beneficial allotment in Rajahmundry and Bhimavaram which is very nearer to his native place.  The complainant decided to cancel the admissions of his daughters in opposite party University and requested the opposite party to refund the collected fee as his daughters got admission in other colleges.  Complainant paid less fee in Engineering college as against the opposite party university.  The opposite party was facing litigation problem in respect of statue of deemed University before Supreme Court by that time.  The opposite party collected tuition fee and other fee in advance for annual.  The complainant utilized the services rendered by opposite party for one and half months only.  Unattended classes and the services of opposite party are liable to be refunded to the complainant.  Complainant made several personal visits as well as written representation by issuing legal notice through his counsel cum President of consumer education and service society on 09-01-10.  Having received the legal notice the opposite party issued reply legal notice to the complainant dated 13-12-10.  The opposite party also served a letter dated 03-12-10 denying the refund of paid fee to the complainant.  The opposite party failed to refund the paid amount to the complainant and committed deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint. 

3.      Opposite party filed its version which is in brief are as follows.

        Most of the allegations in the complaint are false, incorrect, baseless, invented for the purpose of complaint and the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant’s daughters are not eligible to get the refund amount, because admissions were closed.  If the seat falls vacant for any reason it cannot be filled in for ensuing 4 years, as such it amounts to denial of admission to another deserving student and also financial loss to the opposite party institution to a tune of Rs.5,50,000/- approximately.  The withdrawal of the student beyond two months of admission is totally discouraged.  The opposite party allowed reasonable time for the student to adjust the environment.  As the time advances the institution spends lot of amount towards students.  It is not possible to recollect the advances spent for the students.  The complainant accepted for the non refundability of fee and obtained his daughters certificates from the institution.  On 08-11-10 complainant got issued registered notice wherein it was mentioned at the complainant’s daughters joined on 23-07-11 and withdrawn form opposite party on 01-10-10 and according to said notice complainant’s daughters studied and stayed for abut 2 months 4 days.  The admission fee of Rs.5,000/- , hostel fee registration of Rs.5,000/- and hostel fee Rs.7,500/- are not refundable.  The total fee paid by complainant to opposite party is non refundable.  The tuition fee of Rs.35,000/- each was paid by the daughters of the complainant i.e. Rs.70,000/- .  Infact the annual fee of each student is Rs.86,000/- i.e. total of Rs.1,72,000/-.  Admittedly complainant’s daughters stayed for more than 2 months 15 days i.e. nearly about 3 months.  As per the University Grant Commission, letter dated 30-04-07 and also public notice of U.G.C. dated 23-04-07 and also Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education U/s 3A, the institution must return the fee collected with proportional deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent applicable.  Infact complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,000/- per each of his daughters whereas the annual fee of each student is Rs.86,000/-, the total annual fee is Rs.1,72,000/-.  If the annual fee is divided by 10 months it will come to Rs.8,600/- per month. Admittedly the students i.e. the daughters of complainant stayed for 3 months as such they have to pay and amount of Rs.25,800/- each i.e. in all Rs.51,600/-. The hostel fee charges are Rs.12,500/- each i.e.Rs.25,000/- in all.  Thus the complainant’s daughters have to pay an amount of total tuition fee of Rs.51,600/- and hostel fee of Rs.25,000/- and admission fee of Rs.10,000/-.  Thus the complainant has to pay Rs.86,000/- to each of his daughters.   But where as the complainant paid Rs.70,000/- only towards tuition fee.  As per the rules and regulations of U.G.C. the complainant did not get any amount from the opposite party.  Moreover the opposite party sustained heavy loss due to withdrawal of his daughters from opposite party without any valid reasons. The opposite party issued their certificates without any hesitation.  Hence there is no question of mental agony suffered by complainant.  The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation legal expenses etc.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

4.      Complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions. 

5.     On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-6 are marked.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.  

6.      Now the points that arise for consideration are:

        1.  Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

        2.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

             opposite party?

        3.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.      POINT NO.1:- Even though the opposite party mentioned that the complaint is barred by limitation, it was not explained as to how the complaint is time barred.  The complainant paid fee for his daughters to opposite party on 23-07-10 as Exs.A-1 and A-2.  The complaint was filed before this Forum on 13-02-12.  Therefore, the complaint is well within time and is not barred by limitation.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

8.      POINT NO.2:-  The case of the complainant is that he got admitted his two daughters viz., Anjali and Geetanjali in opposite party University for Engineering course before announcement of EAMCET examination results on 23-07-10 and paid Rs.52,500/- each, that as his daughters got ranks in EAMCET Examination they got admission in Rajahmundry and Bhimavaram which are beneficial and nearer to his native place and that therefore, the complainant decided to cancel the admissions in the opposite party University and requested the opposite party to refund the fee paid for his daughters, but the opposite party did not refund the fee paid by him inspite of issuance of legal notice and that thereby the opposite party committed deficiency of service. 

9.      The case of opposite party is that the daughters of the complainant joined in the opposite party University on 23-07-10 and withdrawn from opposite party University on 01-10-10 as per the legal notice dated 08-11-10 got issued by the complainant, that as per the letter of University Grants Commission dated 30-04-07 and public notice of U.G.C. dated 23-04-07 U/s 3(a), the institution must return the fee with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent applicable, that the annual fee of each student is Rs.86,000/- but the complainant has paid Rs.35,000/- for each of his daughters i.e. in all Rs.70,000/-, that if the annual fee is divided by 10 months it will come to ( 2 x 3 x 8,600/-) Rs.51,600/-, the hostel fee charges are Rs.12,500/- each i.e. Rs.25,000/- and admission fee is Rs.10,000/-, thus the complainant has to pay Rs.86,600/- to each of his daughters, but the complainant paid Rs.70,000/- only towards tuition fee, that the opposite party sustained heavy loss due to withdrawal of the daughters of the complainant from the opposite party University, that the opposite party has returned the certificates of the daughters of complainant without any hesitation when complainant asked to withdraw his daughters from the opposite party University since complainant has accepted for non refundability of fee..  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 

10.   It is not in dispute that two daughters of complainant got admission in opposite party University on 23-07-10 in Engineering Course before announcement of results of EAMCET Examination and that the complainant has paid Rs.52,500/- for each of his daughters to the opposite party University as shown in Exs.A-1 and A-2.  The complainant got issued registered notice dated 08-11-10 to the opposite party under Ex.A-3 demanding reply regarding refund of fee.  As seen from Ex.A-3 the daughters of complainant got admission on 23-07-10 and left the opposite party University on 01-10-10. Thus the daughters of complainant remained with the opposite party University for about nine weeks.

11.   During the course of arguments the counsel for complainant relied on the following decisions in support of the case of the complainant-

I.  I(1992) CPJ 105, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Bombay, in case between Abel Pacheco Gracias and Principal, Bharatividyapith College of Engineering_ where in it was held that

“refusal to refund tuition fee is not only reprehensible but unjust, irrational and illegal” 

The facts of this case are the appellants son was admitted as a first year student in Engineering college of opposite party.  He deposited Rs.8,250/- towards tuition fee and other fee at the time of admission.  In addition to the aforesaid fee, he has also deposited the hostel fee of Rs.8,875/- .  He appeared for joint entrance examination and secured admission in Government College at IIT, Kharakhpur, as he was successful in the entrance examination.   Hence, the complainant approached the opposite party for refund of college and hostel fee and made an application for refund.  The opposite party refunded the entire hostel fee but as against the deposited tuition fee of Rs.8,250/-, only an amount of Rs.2,364/- was refunded and no reasons for refund of that amount were explained by the opposite party.  Reliance was placed on rule (1) framed by the Director of Technical Educational dated 27-09-1988.  The rule 1 provides that if a student wants to cancel his admission in the Aided College or non government, non aided college, the college should return the tuition fee of a student deducting 10% out of tuition fee or Rs.100/- whichever is less.  Basing on the said rule the appeal was allowed directing the opposite party college to refund to the complainant Rs.5,816/- which is the balance left towards tuition fee after deduction of Rs.100/-.  Subsequent to this rule, All India Counsel for Technical Education has issued public notice, advertisement in the year 2002, regarding refund of fee and the same has been readvertised every year.  Therefore, the said citation relied on the counsel is not applicable to the case on hand. 

 II.  The next citation relied by counsel for complainant is              (2012) CPJ 417 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, a case between Indian Institute of Professional Studies and Rekha Sharma. 

The facts of this case are that the opposite party published an advertisement in a news paper wherein it had asked for applications for admission in M.PEd. course for the calendar year 2009-10.  The complainant sent a Demand .Draft. for Rs.200/- asking for application form for admission into the said course.  The demand draft was sent by speed post on 09-06-2009 which involved a further expenditure of RS.30/- in addition to that Rs.30/- spent by respondent as Demand Draft charges.  The opposite party sent prospectus to the complainant but in the prospectus no information was given about the said course.   Treating this as a false advertisement the complainant sent letter through registered post requesting to refund Rs.275/-.  The opposite party did not refund the money.  Aggrieved by this the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  The opposite party filed its reply to the matter yet no affidavit in support of the submissions made was filed nor the contents of reply were verified due to which the same could not be treated as evidence. After appraisal of the issues, evidences reduced by the complainant and supported by documents the District Forum held that there was deficiency in the matter on the part of opposite party.  The complaint of the complainant was decided exparte against the opposite party and ordered the opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.280/- for demand draft amount, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenditure and the same was confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission.  The facts of the said case are different to the facts of the case on hand.  Therefore, the said citation is not applicable to the case on hand. 

III.  II (2012) CPJ 562 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, a case between FIIT JEE LTD and Pramod Panwar. 

In this case the complainant got her son admitted for a two years course.  The total fee for this course was Rs.94,282/- against which he paid Rs.77,446/- to the opposite party institute. After attending the course for about 5 ½ months the complainant’s son was not satisfied with the poor quality of teaching and therefore, complainant withdrew his son from the institute and applied for refund of balance fee.  The National Commission relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic academy of education and another verses and State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 697, observed that it would be reasonable for the opposite party institute to deduct Rs.47,141/- i.e. is the fee for the 1^st year (since that seat would remain unutilized) and ordered for refund of balance amount of Rs.30,000/-. In this case the son of complainant joined in 2 years course on a regular basis and studied for 5 ½ months and sought for refund as he want to discontinue study in that institution.  But in the case on hand the daughters of complainant got admission in opposite party University provisionally much earlier before the announcement of EAMCET results and as they have succeeded in the EAMCET examination and got ranks in it and got admission at Rajahmundry and Bhimavaram, which are nearer to their native place and beneficial, they left the opposite party University. Therefore, the case on hand is distinguishable to the facts of the above case as the opposite party failed to produce any evidence showing that the seats vacated by the daughters of the complainant are kept vacant and they suffered any loss.

IV.  I (2012) CPJ 186 Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, a case Between Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Disha Jain. 

In this case the complainant after qualifying entrance test, appeared for second counseling on 27-07-07.  She was given provisional admission in Bharathi Vidyapith, Institute of Computer Application and Management.  She deposited Rs.58,000/- by way of demand draft towards the admission fee and the course was to commence from 01-08-07 by the opposite party University.  Subsequently she got admission call from Institute of Informatics and Communication in Delhi University.  The complainant asked the opposite party institute on 30-07-07 to stop processing her candidature and asked to refund her full fee.  Her allegation is that on      24-07-07 when her second counseling took place she deposited the on fee, which was also the date for applying for cancellation of admission with full refund of fee by the University.   Since her counseling took place on 24-07-07, she was not given any time to apply for cancellation of her admission and for seeking refund of fee.  Since the opposite party did not accede to her request, she filed a complainant before the District Consumer Forum seeking refund of fee of Rs.58,000/- and also compensation.  Here in this case the Commission referred the public notice advertisement issued by All India Counsel for Technical Education in the year 2002, which has been readvertised every year and also referred the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission which are as follows:  

        “Whereas it has come to the notice of the AICTE that Technical Institutions and Universities, are admitting students to technical education programmes long before the actual starting of an academic session; collecting full fee from the admitted students……..

And, whereas, Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such date…….

And, whereas the time-limit for students to join the courses/ programmes is also being advanced in some cases unrealistically so as to pre-emt student/candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. 

In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed 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/University to the student/candidates withdrawing from the programme.  It would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate in original.  Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidates by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

Any violation of instructions issued by the AICTE, shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring Institutions and Universities.  AICTE shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions”. 

          The University Grant Commission has also issued guidelines which are as hereunder :-

“it has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of the studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and, retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificates in original.  The Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.  The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice.  However, it would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. 

The Ministry of Human Resources Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates in the event of a student/candidate 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.100/- shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme.  Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. 

The Universities/Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC.  The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.  Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them. 

          This notice has been reiterated subsequently also” 

In the said case the District Consumer Forum, on consideration of evidence of both parties decreed the claim of the complainant holding the opposite party deficiency in service, directed the opposite party to refund the fee of complainant after debiting non administrative charges (Rs.10,000/-, and also to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation costs Rs.2,000/-).  The said order of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission.  The above said case is also distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as the facts of the case on hand, are different to the facts of the above said case. 

V. I (2012) CPJ 194 (NC) , National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, a case between FIIT JEE LTD. And Dr.Minathi Rath. 

In this case the complainant got her daughter enrolled in 2 years regular class room programme of the opposite party for which full advance fee of Rs.61,020/- was paid on 20-04-04 for services coaching to be completed in March, 2006.  The student attended regular classes upto January 2005, but found that she was not benefiting from the opposite party teaching pattern and decided to withdraw from the institute and requested to refund the advance for the unattended period amounting to Rs.30,500/-.  Following the principles laid down in Islamic Academy of Education versus State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, the Commission directed the opposite party to refund the fee (excluding the service tax) for the unutilized period.  The principles followed in the said citation can be applied to the facts of the present case.

 VI.  (2007) CPJ 384 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, a case between  Gora Academy of Education and ANR. And C.Vani and others. 

In this case money was collected from the complainants on false assurances, furnishing of false and bogus certificates by the opposite party.  Therefore, the facts of this case are quite different to the facts of the case on hand.  Therefore the said citation is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 

VII.   (1993) CPJ 9, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in a case between APEEJAY SCHOOL & Another and M.K.Sangal and others.  It was held

          “The conditions printed in the prospectus of the school that in case a student leaves the school within a month of his/her admission he/she will be refunded half of annual dues and that registration fee, tuition fee and admission fee and bus charges are not refundable was an unreasonable and unfair clause”

In this case, the complainant got admission of his daughter in Nursery classes in opposite party institution.   Later complainant sought for cancellation of admission of his daughter and requested for refund of all the fee except admission fee.  But the opposite party refunded only caution money.  The District Forum held that the school had no right to retain any dues paid by complainant except admission fee and that the remaining amount was refundable to the complainant.  The finding of the District Forum was upheld by the Commission.  The facts of this case are also distinguishable to the facts of the case on hand. 

12.   The opposite party has stated in its version and affidavit, that as per the letter dated 30-04-07 of the University Grant Commission and also public notice dated 23-04-07 of U.G.C. and also Government of India Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education U/s 3(a) the institution must return the fee collected with proportional deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent.  Admittedly the daughters of complainant were admitted in the opposite party institution on 23-07-10 and left the opposite party University on 01-10-10 as per Ex.A-3 notice dated 08-11-10.  Therefore, as per the public notice issued by All India Counsel for Technical Education and as per the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and following the principles laid down in Islamic Academy of Education versus State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, the institution must refund the fee for the unattended period with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent. But the opposite party has not refunded the fee for the period for which service is not rendered, inspite of issuance of notices and demands made by the complainant.  Therefore, we find deficiency of service on the part of opposite party institution.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

13.    POINT NO. 3 :-  As seen from Exs.A-1 and A-2 the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- towards registration fee and Rs.5,000/- for hostel registration  and paid Rs.35,000/- towards tuition fee and Rs.7,500/- towards hostel fee for each of his daughters.  The registration fee of Rs.5000/- and hostel registration fee of Rs.5000/- are not refundable.  But the tuition fee and the hostel fee collected by the opposite party from the complainant shall be refunded proportionately for the period to which service was not rendered by the opposite party.  The total tuition fee for the year is shown as Rs.86,000/- and total hotel charges is shown as Rs.50,000/- for an academic year in Ex.A-1 and A-2.  The period of service utilized by the daughters of the complainant’s is about nine weeks and considering the said period it can be considered as three months, as the institution must return the fee with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent as per the public notice advertisement issued by All India Counsel for Technical Education.  If the total fee is divided for 10 months of the academic year, the tuition fee of Rs.8,600/- is payable for one month and Rs.5,000/- is payable towards hostel charges for a month.  If these amounts are calculated for the period served by the opposite party the tuition fee will come to Rs.25,800/- (8,600 X 3) and hostel charges will come to Rs.15,000/- (5000x3) for each student.  As already stated above the complainant paid Rs.35,000/- towards tuition fee and Rs.7,500/- towards hostel fee.  Therefore, if the tuition fee payable is deducted from out of the fee paid it will come to Rs.9,200/- for each student.  The amount payable towards hostel fee for a student for three months is arrived to Rs.15,000/-. But the complainant has only paid Rs.7,500/- for each of his daughters.  Therefore, the complainant has to pay another Rs.7,500/- towards hostel fee for each of his daughters.  If the fee payable by complainant towards hostel fee is deducted from out of the fee refundable by the opposite party towards tuition fee for each student it will come to Rs.1,700/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3,400/- from the opposite party.  In the circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that if the opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,400/- together with interest thereon @9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 13-02-2012 to till realization to the complainant and awarding Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs against the opposite party would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this point is answered.   

14.  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:-

1. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,400/- to the complainant towards refund of fee together with interest thereon @9%p.a. from the date of complaint i.e.,                13-02-2012 till realization. 
2. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of the complaint. 

        The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount ordered in item 2 also carry interest @ 9% p.a till realization. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 26^th day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite Parties  : NIL

 PRESIDENT