BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 519 OF 2013 AGAINST CC No.432 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- I, HYDERABAD
Between :
J.Alekhya D/o. J. Jagan Mohan Rao,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.F6/5, APPM Township Colony,
Mallalahpet, Rajahmundry,
Eash Godavai District ….Appellant / Complainant
AND
The Indian Institute of Planning & Management,
IIPM Towers,
No.419, 100 Ft. Road,
Koramangala,
Bangalore, Rep. by it’s Chairman.
Indian School of Business & Economy,
IIPM Towers,
No.419, 100 Ft. Road,
Koramangala,
Bangalore, Rep. by it’s Chairman.
Indian School of Business & Economy,
IIPM Towers,
D.No.6-3-252/2, Erramanzil,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
Bangalore, Rep. by it’s Chairman. ....Respondents / Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : M/s. V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite Parties : M/s. K.Vishweswar Reddy
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
,
Thursday, the Eighth day of June
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
The Appellant herein is the Complainant and the Respondents are the Opposite parties in C.C.No.432/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum -I (for brevity, “the District Forum”) Hyderabad.
2. The factual matrix of the Complainant’s case, as set up before the District Forum, is that she took admission in a three year full time program / course in Planning and Entrepreneurship for the academic years 2011-2014 at the Opposite Party no.1 Institute and paid initial admission fee of Rs.1200/- on 14.06.2011 and thereafter first installment of Rs.1,27,740/- and second installment of Rs.80,000/- to the Opposite Party no.2. The further case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party no.1 Institute failed to provide to the Complainant laptop, necessary books and study material and that even there was no proper faculty and that despite lodging of several complaints by her father through e-mails, there was no proper response. Therefore, she got transferred to Opposite Party no.3 Institute at Hyderabad from Opposite Party no.1 Institute in the month of January, 2012 by remitting transfer fee of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter she paid third installment of Rs.89,740/- at the Opposite Party no.3 study centre after adjustment of hostel fee. On enquiry she came to know that the University examinations were postponed from time to time. Subsequently, she came to know that the Gulburga University had commenced first semester examinations from 05.04.2012. But the Opposite Parties kept the Complainant in dark and did not inform about the said examinations and even failed to respond to the phone calls of her father. As per the Complainant, she paid about 60% of the total course fee and also got adequate attendance. But on account of gross negligence and lack of care on the part of the Opposite Parties she could not appear for first semester examinations of the Gulburga University and thereby lost one valuable academic year. Therefore, she thought that there was no point in further prosecuting ISBE-UGP course with the Institute of Opposite Parties and demanded refund of the fees of Rs.2,60,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a., and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs by way of legal notices and thereafter filed the case before the District Forum.
- Despite service of notices, the Opposite Parties did not appear and contest the claim.
- After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum has passed the impugned order on 31.05.2013 dismissing the complaint, aggrieved by which the Complainant has came up with the present appeal.
- The Complainant has contended in the Appeal, inter-alia, that the District Forum did not appreciate properly the contents of the Transfer Form dated 09.01.2012 vide Ex.A8 whereby she got transferred to the Opposite Party no.3 study centre from the Opposite Party no.1 Institute so also her letter vide Ex.A9 wherein reasons were given for such a transfer. Infact the Opposite Party no.3 has neither collected University examination fee from the Complainant nor informed about its due date despite making enquiries. This negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party no.3 has caused loss of one precious academic year and career hampered of the Complainant. Thus, when the Complainant has paid more than 60% of the fees and sustained loss of the academic year on account of lack of care on the part of the Opposite Parties, she is certainly entitled for refund of the same with adequate compensation. But, the District Forum has erred in not considering all these aspects and thereby committed illegality in passing the impugned order resulting in miscarriage of justice. For these reasons she sought to set aside the same by allowing the appeal.
- Perused the material evidence on record and the written arguments filed by both the learned counsel.
- Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal and that as such liable to be set aside?
- Point: Admittedly the Complainant joined three years full time program in Planning and Entrepreneurship for the academic years 2011-2014 batch 11-14/F/ISBE-UG at the Opposite Party no.1 Institute and prosecuted her studies from June – 2011 and thereafter got transferred to the Opposite Party No.3 study centre in the month of January – 2012 by remitting transfer fee of Rs.10,000/-. During the said period, on 17.02.2012 the Complainant’s father sent an email vide EX.A9 to the Opposite Party no.1 Institute stating that the Complainant was frequently feeling home sick and could not accustom to the climate at Bangalore and that even otherwise it was far away from his native place and that as such he sought to permit her to get transferred to Opposite Party no.3 study centre from the Opposite Party no.1 Institute. Thus it is clear that she availed services of the Opposite Parties during the year 2011-2012.
- The Complainant has alleged that despite repeated requests made by her father in seeking University examination schedule, there was no response from any of the Opposite Parties. But this allegation sans any truth. Because while leaving the Opposite Party no.1 Institute at Bangalore, she was duly informed to be in touch with one Ms. Ankita, Coordinator, University examinations, for getting the examinations schedule. This fact is evident from the Transfer Form, Ex.A8. The material part of the said document, for beneficial use, is extracted below:-
Remarks:
- As per academic coordinators, student was asked to the IIPM exam which is going to start by next week. But student is not sure of it. So, please make sure she takes up there.
- Also, she is not sure of upgrading the course, as she is applied for university programme. She is not willing to come to Bangalore & take the university exam.
- Ms.Ankita from Bangalore is coordinating for the university exams. So, I request you to get in touch with her for further clarifications on the following number PH-080-30082759.
- Also, go through the letter for further acknowledgments for your reference.
Please revert in case of any clarification required.
Thanks and Regards,
Padma
9741529656/080-30082711
Thus it is crystal clear that the Complainant was aware about commencement of the IIPM exam. Further, despite the Opposite Party no.1 Institute providing her with the phone number of the University examinations coordinator, she did not choose to contact her and seek necessary information / clarification. Even the name and contact numbers of the dispatching authority of the Transfer Form was also provided to the Complainant. When these are the facts borne by record, she cannot blame the Opposite Parties for her own negligent act.
- It is not in dispute that the Complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.2,60,500/- to the Opposite Parties towards her tuition fee during the year 2011-2012 as evident from the Certificate issued by the Opposite Party no.3 study centre vide Ex.A7. It is also evident that the Complainant has availed services of the Opposite Parties for a period of two years in Bangalore and Hyderabad. Having availed the said services, strangely she seeks refund of the said fees, which is not permissible, as per the prospectus for the year 2011 vide EX.A19, issued by the Opposite Party no.1 Institute. Under the caption, Fees Payment Schedule at page no.77 of this document it has been noted as under:-
………….. Professionally admitted students are refunded fees only in the event of their failure in qualifying examinations and if the result is known before first September. In all other cases fees once paid are not refundable under any circumstances. ……………. Caution deposits [including deposit for hostel] are refundable not earlier than three months after the withdrawal from the Institute.
The Complainant being a party to the said Prospectus, she is bound by all the terms and conditions including the aspect of fee, noted therein. Therefore, in our considered opinion, she is estopped from seeking refund of the fees in question.
- The discussion made in the forgone paras clearly show that the material documents under Exs.A7 to Ex.A9 & A19 filed by the Complainant speak loudly against the case set up by her. No doubt, she has relied on the decision in, Aashirwad Health and Education Trust and another Vs. S.L.M.Ahammed and others, II [2013] CPJ 237[NC], but the said case pertains to the matter of student’s seeking refund of fees with compensation on account of the latches and deficiency on the part of the Educational Institute therein. In the said case the Opposite Party Educational Trust did not obtain due permission from the Medical Counsel of India [MCI] which is statutory authority and failed to prove that they have made arrangement for students either in this country or with foreign countries in respect of clinical part of the Curriculum. Further, after training for one or two years, the students were left in lurch because there was no recognition or approval to the Opposite Party Trust from any competent authority concerned in India and that the parents of the students were induced to part with huge sums of money with fond hope that they would get degrees and become medical professionals. In the said circumstance, the appeal of the Opposite Party Trust was dismissed. But the facts of the present case are entirely different and that as such the Complainant cannot avail any benefit from the said decision.
- We have gone through the impugned order. The learned District Forum has considered all the material facts and the evidence placed on record in a right perspective and came to a just and reasonable conclusion in passing it. In our considered opinion, the conclusions arrived at therein are with satisfactory and convincing reasoning and do not suffer with any material irregularity or illegality and that as such the same needs no interference. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Appeal is devoid of any merit and as such liable to be dismissed by confirming the impugned order.
- In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 08.06.2017
