Bangalore Urban


A.G. Mutalik Desai - Complainant(s)


Mats School of Business an IT - Opp.Party(s)


15 Sep 2008


Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1420/2008

A.G. Mutalik Desai


Mats School of Business an IT






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


COMPLAINT FILED: 26.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 14th AUGUST 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1420/2008 COMPLAINANT A.G. Mutalik Desai, Aged 56 years, H.No. 2, 2nd Cross, Savanur Complex, Keshwapur, Hubli – 23. Advocate (Vidya Jahagirdar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Sr. Chenraj Jain, The Chairman, MATS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND IT, 319, 17th Cross, 25th Main, J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078. Advocate (Vasant S. Kori) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: It is the case of the complainant that his daughter Miss. Rashmi took admission at OP institution for the academic year 2007-09 on 05.03.2007 and paid the required tuition fees in all to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. Complainant daughter joined the OP institution on 21.06.2007 as a regular student. But thereafter somehow she was unable to continue her course because of health problem, allergic disease due to Bangalore climate. Thus forced to discontinue the course and went back to her native place Hubli. In the meantime complainant has raised an education loan of Rs.4,00,000/- repayable in 60 EMI with 12% interest at the rate of Rs.8,896/-. After discontinuance of the course complainant and his daughter requested the OP to refund the tuition fees paid by them, but it went in vain. They even caused the legal notice on 17.03.2008. Again there was no response. Without imparting the education OP retained the said huge amount, thereby caused the monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant and his daughter. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the present complainant has no privity of contract with the OP. Of course the daughter of the complainant Miss. Rashmi joined PGDBM course for the academic year 2007-09 two years and was required to pay the tuition fee for the whole course. At the request of the complainant an instalment facility was given, accordingly complainant made payment as stated. OP is not aware of complainant availing the educational loan. The fee collected for the entire course at the time of admission is only Rs.1,80,000/- as against Rs.3,90,000/-. Due to the untimely withdrawal of the said seat vacancy created. OP could not fulfill the said vacancy because of non-availability of the other students who are interested to take admission for the said course for the said academic year. Complainant having understood the terms and conditions that at no point of time the fees paid will be refunded in case of voluntary withdrawal from the admission took the admission. Now the complainant is estopped from claiming the refund of the said admission fees. The non-refund of the fee does not amount to deficiency in service. As the OP could not fill up the said vacancy, it has suffered monetary loss. Under such circumstances OP is justified in denying the claim of the complainant. The other allegations are baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the Miss. Rashmi the daughter of the complainant took admission for PGDBM at OP institution for the academic year 2007-09. Complainant being the father of the said Miss. Rashmi naturally is a beneficiary with regard to the privity of contract entered into between his daughter and the OP. So the allegation of the OP that present complainant has no interest or right to file this complaint rather does not hold force. In addition to that Miss. Rashmi has executed GPA in favour of the father the complainant. Hence for this reason the defence set out by the OP that present complaint is not maintainable is devoid of merits. 7. The fact that complainant’s daughter paid Rs.1,80,000/- to OP with regard to the said course is not at dispute. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that her daughter could not continue the education at OP institution because of health problem and allergic disease due to Bangalore climate that is the reason why she withdrew from the said course in the middle of the year. We are satisfied that there are genuine reasons and grounds for the complainant’s daughter to discontinue the said course on the health ground. 8. The fact that OP collected the said fees to impart the education for two years course is not at dispute. Complainant’s daughter did not attend the class even for a period of 2-3 months, that means to say OP has not imparted the said education for a complete course. Under such circumstances it is rather not fair on the part of the OP to retain the entire fees that is paid. Of course the reputed mighty institution like OP should have been little generous and magnanimous while dealing with fees and imparting the education to the needy and deserving student. They should not treat the so called untimely withdrawal and non-payment of the remaining fees as a business loss because imparting of education is not a business, but it is a service. 9. There is a substance in the contention of the complainant that in order to promote the education of his daughter he has even availed the education loan facility from the Bank and he is required to repay the same in an EMI. Under such circumstances if he is unable to get back the amount that is paid to the OP because of the discontinuance of the course, naturally complainant will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. 10. Of course OP has contended that due to the vacancy that arised in pursuance of abrupt withdrawal from the course by the complainant’s daughter they are unable to meet the other expenses. OP has not produced any document to show that the seat fell vacant due to withdrawal of the complainant’s daughter is not filled up by them for the said academic year. Under such circumstances the contention of the OP that they will be put to further loss of Rs.1,10,000/- rather does not hold much force. The contention of the OP that the non-refund of the fee will not amount to deficiency in service also does not sound well. When OP has not imparted the education, in our view it has no right to retain the entire tuition fees. By retaining the same they have accrued the wrongful gain to self, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant. 11. When complainant had the genuine and reasonable problem to discontinue the education OP would have appreciated the same and would have refunded the said tuition fee atleast 50% of the amount that is paid. But no such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in service. Of course we have borne in our mind the guidelines enunciated by their Lordships in the catena of decisions relied on by the OP, while coming to the just conclusion in this case. But the facts enunciated by their Lordships in the said decisions are entirely different from the facts on hand. We have followed the basic principles. 12. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us, the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the 50% of the fees collected that is Rs.90,000/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of August 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

......................A.M. BENNUR
......................SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA
......................SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI