Date of Filing: 15/09/2018

Date of Order: 07/06/2019

THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 07^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B.Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1528/2018

V/s

ORDER

 BY SRI.SURESH.D.MEMBER:

1.  This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) alleging deficiency in service and to direct O.P to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,11,000/-  paid by the complainant along with interest @ 18% from the date of payment till the date of refund, to pay the cost and expenses of this complaint and damages at least twice the amount of the total fee paid for deficiency of service, gross negligence and harassment by not returning original documents and money paid and to pass such other order as this Forum deems fit.

2.      Complainant was aspiring to do MBA course at the AIMIT Bangalore (OP’s institution). While getting admission, the OP institute also verified the 1st and 2nd years B.Com marks cards and all other educational documents. After the interview, OP informed the complainant that he was selected for admission on merit basis for the MBA program. Pursuant to the Ops communication complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,11,000/-  through cash and D.D. towards the course fee.  After receiving the amount OP institute issued Identification card, certificate, receipt and obtained all his original educational documents.  Complainant started to attend MBA classes from 7^th August 2015.  After attending classes for a period of 3 months, all of a sudden OP informed the complainant that his admission to the MBA course was not approved by Bangalore University as the complainant’s aggregate marks in B.Com degree was below 50%. After hearing this, complainant was shocked and became upset with the said oral communication. The very attitude of OP is nothing but sheer negligence.  As such complainant sought refund of course fee and also original documents from the OP which effort became futile and op returned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only  out  of the total fee paid.  Complainant continuously followed up with the said OP institute for refund of balance amount of Rs.1,11,000/-. But OP did not respond. He got issued a legal notice on 28.9.2017 through RPAD demanding refund of the amount and for the return of the original documents. Inspite of receiving the notice, OP neither replied nor returned the amount and documents. Hence this complaint. 

3.     Upon service of notice, O.P appeared before the Forum but has not filed version and not to adduced evidence. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and documents. Heard the arguments.

4.     The following points arise for our consideration:-

                1)   Whether the complainant has proved

                       Deficiency in service on the part of the

                       O.P?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1):        In the Affirmative.

POINT 2):        Partly in the affirmative.

For the following

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

6.     After perusing the complaint, evidence   and documents, it is clear that the complainant by paying the prescribed fee of Rs.1,75,000/-through D.D  to O.P’s. education institution,  he took admission to MBA course in AIMIT Bangalore. He has produced fee challans and copy of the D.D drawn in the name of OP institution.  The complainant has stated in his complaint that he has paid Rs. 2,11,000/- towards course fee. But has produced the D.D for Rs.1,75,000/- only. Further as per Exhibit P.4 the complainant was asked to pay Rs.30,000/- to get himself admitted as admission fee either by cash or D.D. Since the complainant has stated that he himself got admitted to the course and attended the same for about 7 days it is to be held that he has paid Rs.30,000/- as admission fee along with Rs.1,75,000/- by way of D.D.   In view of this it is to be held that he has paid only a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-  and not  Rs.2,11,000/-.  Further it is also clear from Exhibit.P4 that the complainant got admitted to the course of MBA in the OP institution and later discontinued him from studying MBA course by giving reason that his admission to the MBA course was not approved by Bangalore University as the complainant aggregate marks in B.Com degree was below 50%.    This is a clear negligence on the OP, since while receiving the all the marks card itself OP was aware of the percentage of marks which the complainant had obtained and also there aware that whether complainant was eligible for admission to MBA.  Further, the complainant attended the MBA course for about 3 months and after wards OP has cancelled his admission to MBA course,   cancelling his admission on the ground that his aggregate marks in B.Com degree is below 50% is purely a negligent act of the OP and amounts to deficiency of service and not refunding the entire amount amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence complainant could not continue MBA course in OPs institution and his one precious academic year as last. In view of discontinuing him from the MBA course complainant sought for refund of the amount paid by him and also for the return of the original education documents by issuing legal notice for which OP did not respond.

7.     As per the averments made in the complaint itself he has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from Op whereas the balance amount of Rs.1,05,000/- has not been refunded and the same has been kept by OP illegally.  

The National commission has held in Bupesh Kurana and others V/s  Vishwa Budha Parishat and Others that:

The imparting of education by an educational institution for a consideration falls within the ambit of ‘Service’ under the consumer protection  Act  and there is deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice, the institution shall be liable to compensate loss to the consumer. 

More over in the instant case, OPs institution is not a statutory body and it is a Private Institution rendering service by getting fees from the students.

8.     The objective of the consumer protection Act is to curb such practices where students and their parents are exploited according to the judgment passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Commission and the clause stating that fees once paid shall not be refunded is unconscionable and void, as service provider cannot retain the money when no service has been rendered.   The student can seek a refund even if receipts states that fees are non refundable.  Similar views has been taken in Brilliant tutorials Vs Rahul Das Appeal NO. 509/2006 decided on 0.1.2017.  And in Islamic academy of education and another v/s State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SC No.697.  Hence Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

9.    In view of the above decisions, we are of the opinion that Ops are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.11.2015 (the date after 3 months from the date of commencement of the course.) till realization. Further it is observe that the Op institution is kept the complainant documents with it. Hence it is justice and proper to ordered to hand the documents to the complainant which are kept with it. Further O.P’s has put the complainant under physical and mental stress for which he has to be compensated and we assess the damages at Rs.25000/-. The act of the O.P made the complainant to knock the doors of this forum by paying court fee and also spent money in attending the Forum hearing on each and every day.  We are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- if awarded towards litigation expenses would meet the ends of justice.  Hence we answer Point No.2 partly in the affirmative and we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.

2. The OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-  along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.11.2015  (the date after  3 months from the date of commencement of the course) till realization and also directed to returns all the documents to the complainant which are received from him at the time of admission.

3. Further O.P is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses to the complainant.

4.  The O.P is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the complaints/ version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by her corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 07^th Day of June 2019)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

PW-1: Sri. Shobhan Shankar Halarnkar. – Complainant.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc:No.1:        Original ID card.

Doc.No.2:        Copy of the Legal notice.

Doc.No.3:                Postal Acknowledgment

Doc.No.4:                Copy of the selection letter issued by OP.

 Doc.No.5:        Copy of the Bank challans              

Doc.No.6:                Copy of the DD

Doc.No.7:        Copy of the bank Statement

Doc.No.8:                Copy of the letter

Doc.No.9:                Copy of the Application form

Doc.No.10:      Copy of the form  

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

-Nil-

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s:

-Nil-

MEMBER                               PRESIDENT