BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 18^th DAY OF MAY 2018

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs for refund of Rs.1,40,000/- together with interest, compensation, cost of litigation etc., alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant while attending B.C.A (Bachelor of Computer Application) at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, desired to pursue management course i.e., M.B.A and accordingly took admission in OPs Institute and her admission was subject to the passing of the B.C.A course.  That OPs collected total fee amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant.  That a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 12^th May 2014, Rs.50,000/- on 23^rd May 2015, Rs.25,000/- on 04^th September 2015 and Rs.40,000/- on 16^th September 2015.  Thus the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to OPs.  That the complainant also submitted the original 10^th Standard marks card, 12^th Standard marks card, 10^th standard certificate, 12^th standard certificate, BCA 1^st Semester to 6^th Semester marks card and voter ID to OPs at the time of admission.  That she paid the above mentioned fees to OPs for the academic year 2015-17 under the hope that she would pass in BCA.  However she failed in one of the subjects in the examination held in the month of May 2015.  That the complainant had not received her marks card at the time of payment of fees to the OPs.  That the complainant lost her hope of completing her BCA degree and started exploring employment opportunity.  That she applied for a job in Kolkata Police Recruitment Board, Kolkata and requested OP to return all the original documents submitted by her to enable her to submit the same before Kolkata Police Recruitment at Kolkata.

That in response to the e-mail of complainant dated 14.01.2016 to Chairperson of OP institute forwarded the same to the concerned official of OP-1 asking him to release the original certificates to complainant after verifying the dues, if any.  That complainant sent e-mail dated 29.08.2015 of OPs stating that she may not pass in BCA during the said academic year and requested them to refund the fees paid by her as well as the original certificates submitted at the time of admission.  That the complainant further confirmed that in the event she passes BCA, she would take admission to MBA in the college of OP.  That by her e-mail dated 28^th September 2015 she informed OPs that she is unable to submit the graduation certificate during the said academic year as she did not pass BCA and expressed her inability to pursue further studies due to her economic conditions.  That in response to the said e-mail, OPs informed the complainant that, she can continue MBA during next academic year i.e., 2016 batch after passing BCA and she can submit her graduation certificate at that time and her admission was kept hold till she passes her graduation course.  Further OPs called upon the complainant to pay all the necessary fees to avoid delayed fee/charges.  That complainant by her e-mail dated 14^th January 2016 requested OPs to return all the original certificates as she has applied for Government job in Kolkata Police Recruitment Board, Kolkata.  That OPs failed to return the original documents.  That complainant has been subjected to mental torture, agony, hardship and inconvenience due to the act of OPs.  That due to non returning of the original certificates by OPs, the complainant has lost job opportunity.  Despite repeated visits and e-mails, OPs did not heed to the request of the complainant and failed to refund the fees.  Therefore, on 26.07.2016 she sent a registered letter requesting to OP to return all her original documents and also refund the fees paid by her within 7 days or else she would be taken legal action against them.  That since OPs did not oblige to return the original documents as well as the fees, complainant is compelled to approach this Forum for redressal.   

3. In response to the notice issued, OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their version.  The brief averments made in the version are as under:

That OP-2 is a trust which manages the OP-1 institute.  That OP-1 institute is an educational institute which offers Master of Business Administration to stable the students.  That complainant having desirous of course at OP-1 institute paid registration fees of Rs.25,000/- on 12.05.2014.  That complainant took admission for the year 2014-16 batch by paying the above mentioned registration fees.  That MBA course for 2014-16 batch commenced in the month of July 2014.  That complainant was asked by OP-1 to pay the fees before commencement of the classes.  That complainant informed that she was unable to clear her Bachelor of Computer Application course and therefore could not continue with the admission process in OP-1 institute.  That complainant was well informed by OPs through brochure that the fees paid is not refundable to which she agreed and requested that she shall clear her exam and come back to get admitted for the same course for 2015-17 batch.  That OP-1 agreed and promised that her admission will be kept open for academic year 2015-17 batch.  That complainant once again in the year 2015 approached the OP-1 and got admitted for MBA course for 2015-17 batch as she knew that her admission is kept open.  That the complainant submitted her application form and informed OP-1 that the complainant is willing to take up the MBA course for 2015-17 and paid Rs.50,000/- fees on 23.05.2015.  That on 16.07.2015 the classes commenced and the complainant started attending the classes.  That the complainant attended the classes till October 2015 by which time 80% of the first semester was completed.  That on 31.07.2015 OP-1 sent e-mail reminder to complainant informing the fee structure.  That complainant acknowledged the e-mail and paid further sum of Rs.25,000/- on 04.09.2015 and later paid another sum of Rs.40,000/- on 16.09.2015.  That the complainant was given admission for the year 2015-17 batch on the assurance that she will pass her BCA exams.  That complainant went ahead with the admission and paid fees till 16.09.2015 and also attended classes for three months.  That complainant having attended the classes for three months cannot seek refund of her fees.

That the complainant on 28.09.2015 informed the OP-1 that she could not pass her graduation and requested OP-1 to give her chance to clear her graduation exam.  This was the second time the complainant was requested for postponing the admission for next academic year.  That complainant knew that the fees paid will not be refunded and hence requested OP-1 to postpone the admission once again that she will return to join the course for 2016-17 batch.  That complainant was given chance for a second time to pursue her MBA course as she was unable to complete graduation during 2014 as well as 2015.  That on 13.01.2016 complainant sent an email to OP-1 asking for return all her original certificates submitted by her at the time of admission, as she has applied for Government job.  That the office was directed to release certificates if there are no dues in library and accounts.  That OP-1 never refused to hand over the certificates.  That it is pertinent to note that, at the time of asking the return of documents, complainant did not insisted for refund of fees.  That OP-1 shocked to receive a letter from complainant on 28.07.2016 asking for return of original certificates as well as refund of fees of Rs.1,15,000/-.  That in the said registered letter dated 26.07.2016 she asked for refund of Rs.1,15,000/- only which she has paid for the year 2015-17 batch but whereas in the complaint filed before this Forum she has demanded Rs.1,40,000/- including fees paid in the year 2014 for 2014-16 batch.  This clearly indicates that the complainant was well aware of the admission guidelines that the fees paid will not be refunded hence did not mention the fees paid in the year 2014 for the 2014-16 batch in her notice/letter dated 26.07.2016.  That OP-1 by their reply letter dated 02.08.2016 informed the complainant that fees cannot be refunded and asked the complainant to collect her original certificates from office of OP-1.

 That the complainant has failed to pursue her studies in case of any deficiency or inconvenience caused by OPs but because of her failure to clear her graduation.  That complainant having agreed to the terms and conditions of the admission now cannot insist for refund of the fees even after attending classes for three months.  The complainant on her own had left the MBA course in between the academic year, causing huge loss to the OPs and the seat will remain vacant throughout the year.  That the complainant has left the course because of her own fault and OPs cannot be punished for no fault on their part.  Despite knowing fully well that the complainant is not justified in refunding the fees, the complaint is filed only with an intention to harass the OPs and defame the OPs institution.

For the above amongst other reasons, OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OPs tendered their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating their respective averments.  Both parties have produced certain documents in support of their respective contention.  Written arguments have been filed by both sides.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7. Complainant who wanted to pursue MBA secured admission in OP-1 institution and paid registration fee of Rs.25,000/- on 12^th May 2014.  At the time when the complainant paid registration fees of Rs.25,000/- she had appeared for final semester of BCA a at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunel Veli, Tamil Nadu.  Admittedly complainant gets eligibility to pursue her studies in MBA only if she is able to pass her graduation.  Since complainant did not pass BCA, she requested OP-1 to hold her application for admission to MBA for the next academic year and as per the request of the complainant, OP was permitted to attend the MBA classes for 2015-17 batch.  Infact her admission was for 2014-16 batch and the admission of the complainant was kept open by OP-1 at the request of complainant since she could not complete her graduation.  Subsequently the complainant has approached OP-1 in the year 2015 for the said MBA course for 2015-17 batch as she knew that her admission is kept open.  The complainant has submitted application form and expressed her willingness to take up MBA course for 2015-17 batch.  Accordingly, she paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.05.2015 which was acknowledged by OP-1.  Subsequently the classes have commenced w.e.f 16.07.2015.  As admitted by complainant herself she has paid further fee of Rs.25,000/- on 04^th September 2015 and another sum of Rs.40,000/- on 16^th September 2015.  Thus the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- between 12^th May 2014 to 16^th September 2015.

8. From the perusal of the material placed on record and as admitted by the complainant herself, again she could not complete her graduation course as a result she discontinued MBA course from October 2015.  Complainant claims that, she has not attended the MBA course even for a day therefore she is entitled for entire fees of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by her.  Against this OPs contended that, complainant who got herself admitted MBA course by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 12^th May 2014 could not pursue her studies in MBA course for her failure to complete her graduation.  Therefore, requested OP institution to keep open her admission for subsequent year.  It is further case of the OPs that complainant promising to produce her graduation certificate joined MBA course for 2015-17 batch and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.05.2015 and started attending the classes w.e.f., 16.07.2015.  OPs contend that the complainant attended the first semester for a period of three months w.e.f., 16.07.2015.  Complainant in her complaint did not state a word as to whether she attended any classes or not during the year 2015 subsequent to payment of Rs.50,000/- on 23.05.2015.  However the copies of attendance register produced by OPs goes to show that the complainant has attended the classes for the period of three months after having paid fees of Rs.50,000/- on 23.05.2015.  It appears to us that, since she continued her studies at OP-1 institution she further paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 04^th September 2015 and Rs.40,000/- on 16^th September 2015 in pursuance of the demand made by OP-1 institution for continuation of her studies.  If at all complainant was not attending or pursuing MBA course, there was no need for paying her the fees of Rs.50,000/- on 23^rd May 2015, Rs.25,000/- on 04^th September 2015 and Rs.40,000/- on 16^th September 2015.  Complainant has deliberately suppressed the fact for attending classes for the period of three months during the academic year 2015.  Complainant admits that even during the year 2015 she did not clear her graduation course.  Therefore, she has stopped pursuing MBA course.  She further claims that, she has lost hope of clearing her graduation therefore she started looking for opportunities in Government job.

9. Thus it is apparent from the averments of complainant that she stopped pursuing MBA course at OP-1 institution not because of any deficiency on the part of OPs but because of her failure to pass her graduation.  Complainant challenges the e-mail dated 14.01.2016 by the chair-person of OP-2 in asking the office to check as to any dues in library and accounts before releasing the certificates of complainant on the ground that she did not attend the classes even for a day.  Therefore, there was no question of taking any books from the library.  However during the course of trial complainant admitted that, she had collected certain books from library while pursuing her studies at OP-1 institution and she returned those two books on 25.01.2017 to OPs.  Advocate for OPs has made an endorsement in the order sheet for having received the said two books from the complainant on 25.01.2017 in the open court.  For the reasons best known to her the complainant even suppressed the fact of taking library books from the library of OP-1 institution and because of her failure to return the said library books she was not given back her certificates.  Even prior to returning of the books by the complainant on 25.01.2017 OPs returned six original certificates and documents to complainant in the open court which she had submitted to OP-1 institution while taking admission to MBA course.  Complainant has made an endorsement in the order sheet for having received in all six original documents from the advocate of OPs.  It is apparent that the complainant was not given back the original documents because of her failure to return the library books.

10. The complainant even in her affidavit evidence did not admit her attending the MBA course for a period of three months even after OPs produced the copies of attendance register.  The complainant for the reasons best known to her suppressed the fact of her attending the classes despite having attended classes for three months and also suppressed the fact of receiving two books from the library.  As stated above, the complainant herself has discontinued the MBA course for the reason that, she could not complete her graduation.  It is argued on behalf of OPs that, after complainant left the course the seat vacated by her remained vacant for the entire course period of two years there by causing huge loss to the OPs.  Complainant either in her affidavit or during the course of arguments did not deny that the seat vacated by her at the end of 1^st semester has not been filled up.  Looking from any angle, we don’t find any deficiency on the part of OPs.  Certainly OPs are not responsible for discontinuation of the MBA course by the complainant.  OPs have proper recognization from the competent university to conduct MBA course in all subjects.  There is no allegation that the faculty in OP-1 institution is either not good or efficient.  The classes are being conducted regularly as could be seen from the copies of attendance register.  Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that, there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs in conducting the said MBA course.  The complainant alone is responsible for discontinuing the course for the simple reason that she could not get eligibility to continue the course as she failed in the final semester of BCA.  The complainant did not deny that, at the time of admission she was informed by the OP-1 institution that the fees once paid are not refundable.  The hand book of prospectus produced also discloses that the fees once paid by the complainant is non refundable.  The complainant in support of her case placed reliance on case law reported in III (2014) CPJ 17 (TN) and IV (2015) CPJ 63 (NC).  Perused the judgments referred to above.  The fact dealt in the said case are entirely different from the facts of the case on hand.  Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said authorities cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.

11. The advocate for OPs placed reliance on the judgment by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in I (2002) CPJ 428.  Perused the said judgment.  The fact dealt in the said judgment are almost similar to the facts of the case on hand.  The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi during the course of judgment have opined as under:

“ 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record.  On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that the son of the appellant joined the coaching course, the duration of which was for two years, being conducted by the respondents and for the aforesaid purpose had paid to the respondents a fees of Rs.30,000/- on 15.10.1999 by means of three cheques.  The sole question requiring consideration in the present appeal is as to whether, in the given facts, can it be stated that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  As per appellant’s own case, the reason given for the refund of the proportionate course fees is the failure of the son of the appellant in the school examination resulting in his transfer from Science Stream to Humanities Stream.  During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant made a vain attempt by contending that as the son of the appellant was transferred from Science Stream to Humanities Stream, the course which the son of the appellant had joined was of no use to the son of the appellant and on the above ground the appellant is entitled to have the refund of the proportionate fees paid by him to the respondents.  In our opinion, in the given facts, the above contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance because the son of the appellant was transferred from Science Stream to Humanities Stream by the School Authorities not for any default on the part of the respondents but due to the fact that the son of the appellant failed in class XIth examination conducted by the school where the son of the appellant was regularly studying.  For the failure of the son of the appellant in class XIth, resulting in his transfer from Science Stream to Humanities Stream, the respondents, by no stretch of imagination, can be held responsible.  No other point was urged or pressed.  In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.  The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance.  The same merits dismissal.  Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs”.

12. In the instant case on hand the complainant has discontinued the course because of her failure to get eligibility to continue the MBA course.  Therefore, she cannot demand refund of the fees paid by her.  The complainant has utterly failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

14.  For the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 18^th day of May 2018)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 18.01.2017.

Ms.Susmita Mahanty,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties dated 25.01.2017.

Smt.Satyadarshini Sharma.

Document produced by the Opposite parties

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*