Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/2/2019

T.K.Ravi, S/o T.V. Krishnaswamy Iyer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology, Rep. by its Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

B.Narahari Reddy

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

Filing Date: 24.12.2018

                                                                                                                                                                                       Order Date:20.02.2020

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

 

C.C.No.02/2019

 

Between

 

 

T.K.Ravi,

S/o. T.V.Krishnaswamy Iyar,

Private Employee,

No.209, Swarnamukhi Towers,

Padmavathipuram,

Tirupati Town and Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology,

            Rep. by its Chairman,

            Having office at Anand Towers,

            Opp. to P.F. Office,

            Raja Ram Mohan Rai Road,

            Richmond Circle,

            Bangalore City,

            Karnataka State.

 

2.         The Principal,

            Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology,

            Having office at Anand Towers,

            Opp. to P.F. Office,

            Raja Ram Mohan Rai Road,

            Richmond Circle,

            Bangalore City,

            Karnataka State.                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.02.20 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            Complaint filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, alleging as follows – The complainant is the father of one T.R.Sai Akhil, who intended to join P.G. D.M.F. D.T. course in the college of opposite parties. As per requirement, his son attended on-line test on 30.04.2018 and admission was confirmed by opposite parties on 01.05.2018. The complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for admission confirmation, and accordingly he paid Rs.20,000/- on 02.05.2018 through NEFT and thereafter paid Rs.30,000/- more for admission confirmation on 03.05.2018. Thus, Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant for the admission of his son. But, due to financial problems, his son dropped the idea of joining the course, and the complainant requested the opposite party over phone on 25.06.2018 to refund the amount already paid by him. The opposite parties asked the complainant to convey the same by way of mail. Accordingly, a mail was sent to the opposite parties on 26.06.2018, but there was no response from the opposite parties with regard to refund of the amount. The complainant personally visited the institute of opposite parties on 10.07.2018 and met the opposite parties and requested for cancellation of admission of his son and to refund the advance amount paid by him. The complainant again reminded the opposite parties on 20.07.2018 and on 29.07.2018 regarding refund of the amount. The complainant has sent mails to 1^st opposite party on 23.09.2018 and also on 30.09.2018. The complainant is unable to continue his son’s education in other courses, as the opposite parties did not refund the amount and as such he had undergone mental agony. In-action on the part of opposite parties to refund the money, amounts to deficiency in service. On 18.10.2018 complainant has issued legal notice to opposite parties, calling upon them to refund advance amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant with interest by cancelling the admission, and a copy of the same marked to UGC, New Delhi. Even after that also opposite parties have failed to comply the demand of complainant, though they received the notice. Hence, complainant constrained to file this complaint.

            2.  Opposite party No.2 filed written version, which was adopted by opposite party No.1. They contended as follows – The averments in para.3 of the complaint are admitted. It is also admitted that complainant paid Rs.50,000/- for admission of his son in the opposite party institute, but the other allegations are denied. The specific allegations that complainant could not take admission of his son to complete the course due to his financial problems and hence complainant has requested the opposite parties over phone on 25.06.2018, to refund the amount paid by him and that opposite parties asked the complainant to convey the same by way of mail and accordingly complainant has sent mail to the opposite parties on 26.06.2018 and that there was no response from the opposite parties for refund of the amount paid by the complainant, and hence complainant personally visited the institute of the opposite parties on 10.07.2018 and met the opposite parties and requested for cancellation of admission of his son and to refund the amount paid by him, and also submitted requisition in writing and that as there was no response from the opposite parties, complainant has reminded the same on 20.07.2018 and 29.07.2018 and that as there was no response from the opposite parties, complainant has sent mails to opposite party No.1 on 23.09.2018 and on 30.09.2018 and that there was no response from the opposite parties are all false.

            3.  The allegation that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is denied. Issuance of legal notice to opposite parties is not denied, but the contents therein are denied. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no cause of action to file this case. There is no trader relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(d) of the Act. There is no consumer dispute as per Section-2(e) of the Act. There is no deficiency in service as per Sections-2(f) (g) and (o) of the Act. The complainant voluntarily applied for PGDMFDT programme for the academic year 2018-20. The admission procedure and fee structure is clearly mentioned in document No.4 filed by the complainant. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to block the seat. Now the complainant cannot question the opposite party with regard to refund of fees. To claim refund, the complainant must have a legal right. There is no such legal right to claim refund. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  The complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of opposite parties one Dr.Ashok Itagi, Principal of opposite party filed chief evidence affidavit and marked Ex.B1.

            5.  The points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section-

       2(d) of C.P.Act?

(ii). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not

       refunding the fee to the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant

        is entitled to the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            6. Point No.(i):- In the written version opposite parties contended that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(d) of the Act. In this connection, it is relevant to extract the relief portion of the judgment rendered by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in Allen Career Institute vs. Anil Kumar Sharma dt:08.04.2019, which is as follows - “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the C.P.Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration, so they are consumers as defined in the C.P.Act”. In view of the above cited decision, we are of the considered view that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(d) of C.P.Act. Accordingly, this point is answered.  

            7.  Point No.(ii):-  In the written arguments, complainant submitted that in order to join his son by name T.R.Sai Akhil in P.G.D.M.F.D.T. course in the college of opposite parties, he paid Rs.50,000/- towards admission fee, as his admission was confirmed by 01.05.2018 after his son attended on-line test on 30.04.2018. On 02.05.2018 complainant paid Rs.20,000/- through NEFT and remaining Rs.30,000/- was paid on the next day for admission confirmation. This fact was not denied by the opposite parties, since the complainant paid the fee for the purpose of admission of his son, and the same was admitted by the opposite parties. The documentary evidence filed by both sides is more or less not in dispute. Ex.A1 mail dt:30.04.2018 inviting the son of complainant to take VIFT Entrance Test Online. Ex.A2 is email given by complainant to opposite party for VIFT Entrance Test dt:30.04.2018. Ex.A3 is another mail sent to complainant son congratulating him for being selected for the admission to PGDM FDT programme for the academic year 2018 and also asking him to pay advance fee of Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A4 is e-mail dt:24.04.2018 received from opposite party to complainant regarding ‘Fees Payment Details’. Ex.A5 is e-mail dt:04.05.2018 received from opposite party regarding payment received towards PGDM FD/T provisional admission fee. Ex.A6 is e-mail dt:12.06.2018 received from opposite party to complainant regarding reschedule dates, commencement of batch – PGDM FMX / FRM / PGDM IMD course. Ex.A7 is e-mail dt:26.06.2018 to opposite party questioning for refund of advance payment of Rs.50,000/-, as he cannot offer the full fee for joining PGDM course. Ex.A8 is e-mail dt:20.07.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding refund of advance payment. Ex.A9 is another e-mail dt:29.07.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding refund of advance payment. Ex.A10 is photocopy of letter dt:10.07.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding refund of advance payment. Ex.A11 is photocopy of application for withdrawal of admission. Ex.A12 is office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties on 18.10.2018. Exs.A13 to A15 are postal acknowledgements from 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and from Online Studies Grievance Redressal respectively. Ex.A16 is UGC guidelines for refund of fee. Opposite parties filed one document i.e. Ex.B1 which is receipt issued for Rs.20,000/- from opposite party, wherein they have mentioned about receipt of Rs.20,000/- dt: 02.05.2018 and Rs.30,000/-  dt:03.05.2018 paid through NEFT. Further, they gave particulars of fees to be paid for      1^st and 2^nd year totalling Rs.6,95,000/- (1^st year Rs.3,47,500/- and 2^nd year Rs.3,47,500/-).  As already stated by us, the documents are not in dispute.               

            8.  In the written arguments filed by opposite parties, it is contended that complainant is not entitled for refund of fee. The complainant is well aware of the fee structure prior to paying advance fee, so he cannot question the opposite party on this aspect. It is argued that, as per the complainant due to financial problems, his son discontinued admission, but the said reason is not a valid ground to refund the advance payment. No refund will be permitted by the institute and hence request of the complainant cannot be considered. It is therefore contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

9.  Ex.A6 dt:12.06.2018 shows that commencement of academic year dates are rescheduled and as per Ex.A6, PGDM FMD course commences from 31.07.2018 and candidates were asked to be present at head office on 30.07.2018. As per Ex.A7 dt:26.06.2018, for the first time complainant asked for refund of advance payment of Rs.50,000/- from opposite party. It is therefore clear that complainant sought refund of the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- even before commencement of the course i.e. 30.07.2018. Ex.A16 is UGC guidelines for refund of fees. As per Clause-4.2.3 if a student chooses to withdraw from the programme of study in which he / she is enrolled, the institution concerned shall follow the four-tier system for the refund of fees remitted by the student. As per the four-tier system mentioned in the said clause when notice of withdrawal of admission served 15 days before formally-notified last date of admission, 100% refund has to be made to the candidate.

10.  In view of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant, we are of the view that item No.1 of four-tier system for refund of fee is applicable to the complainant, and as such opposite party cannot say that they are not liable to refund the advance amount already paid by the complainant. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow this complaint.

11.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of payment of the said amount by the complainant i.e. from 02.05.2018 till the date of realization, and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant due to deficiency in service on their part and also to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Time for compliance of the order is six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.       

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 20^th day of February, 2020.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                             

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri T.K. Ravi (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:Mr. Dr. Ashok Itagi (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Received E-mail regarding “VIFT from Vogue Institute of Fashion Study invites you to take VIFT Entrance Test Online”. Dt: 30.04.2018.
	Photo copy of Conformation Reply through E-mail given by complainant to opposite party for VIFT Entrance Test. Dt: 30.04.2018.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 01.05.2018 received from opposite party to complainant regarding ‘Admission Confirmation’.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 24.04.2018 received from opposite party to complainant regarding ‘Fees Payment Details’.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 04.05.2018 received from opposite party to complainant regarding ‘For The Payment Received Towards PGDM FD/T Provisional Admission Fee-2018 Session’.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 12.06.2018 received from opposite party to complainant regarding ‘RE-SCHEDULED DATES- Commencement of Batch-PGDM FMD / FRM /PGDM IMD’.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 26.06.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding ‘Refund my Advance Payment of Rs.50,000/- because I cannot afford  fee expenses of PGDM course in your institution due to my financial problems , Further I am planning for suitable course within my affordable budget in some other institution’.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 20.07.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding ‘Refund my Advance Payment’.
	Photo copy of E-mail Dt: 25.07.2018 and 29.07.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding ‘Refund my Advance Payment’.
	Photo copy of Letter. Dt: 10.07.2018 from complainant to opposite party regarding ‘Refund my Advance Payment of Rs.50, 000/-’.
	Photo copy of Application for withdrawal of Admission: Session 2018-19 addressed to 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Dt: 10.07.2018.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. Dt: 18.10.2018.
	Postal acknowledgement from the 1st opposite party.
	Postal acknowledgement from the 2nd opposite party.
	Postal acknowledgement from the Online Studies Grievance Redressal.
	UGC Guidelines to Refund of Fee issued by Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi. Dt: 06.12.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Colour photo copy of NetBanking SBI Receipt (bearing Receipt Nos.  T.R. SAI AKHIL 20000 NetBanking SBI- P18050203673811 Dt: 02.05.2018 Receipt No. DKSAD/MET/18-19/0073, T.R. SAI AKHIL 30000 NetBanking SBI- P10859911660 Dt: 03.05.2018 Receipt No. DKSAD/MET/18-19/0074) for the payment received towards PGDM FD/T provisional admission fee-2018 session.

 

 

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                       President (FAC)

    

                                     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

     

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.