D.O.F. 18-08-2017
D.O.O.18-11-2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt.Moly Kutty Mathew : Member
Sri. Sajeesh.K.P. : Member
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2019.
C.C.No.262/2017
Abdul Khader.N.P,
Fathimas,
Chalil Vayal, Complainant
Chuzhali
Kannur.
1.SIBGA Institute,
Kalliad (PO),
Irikkur, Opposite parties
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv.A.V. Balachandran)
2.Vice Chancellor,
University of Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. O.K. Sasindran)
O R D E R
Smt. Moly Kutty Mathew, Member
The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the amount Rs.2,000 with compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief:
The complainant has applied for admission to his daughter Fathima.S.P. in B.Com Degree on online application at Kannur University. The cxomplainant opted higher option at Sir Syed Institute at Taliparamba and 1st allotment given to the complainant’s daughter at Sibga Institute at Irikkur. At the time of admission 1st opposite party collected Rs.600 from the complainants daughter for admission fee and also collected Rs.2,000 as temporary admission fee. But the 2nd opposite party has well in advance circulated and published the procedure for admission of students under single window system to be followed by all colleges affiliated under the rules. As per the instructions given in circulars permission is granted to admit students by colleges under single window system by collecting only university admission fee of Rs.6,00 in case of students opting for higher option such admission is only temporary and the colleges are not entitled to collect any extra fees in any other head in such temporary admission. The complainants daughter got admission in Sirsyed Institute, Taliparamba the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for refund of Rs.2,000 as already remitted. But the 1st opposite party not refunded the fee already remitted. Alleging the above said act amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties entered appearance before the For a and submitted their written version. Opposite party No.1 contended that there is no provision for the refund of temporary fees paid by the student where she got admission through management quota in another institution. Moreover this 1st opposite party Sibga college has lot a merit admission in degree for the current year and fees amount of Rs.60,000 has been lost for which the complainant is liable to compensate the opposite party. Opposite party No.2 filed IA.327/18 to permit the opposite party No.1 & 2 for joint trial of both cases i.e. CC.262/17, CC.263/17 petition allowed by the Forum dated 17-07-18 permitting the opposite parties to adduce evidence in main case i.e. CC.262/17. Opposite party No.2 states that opposite party No.2 is not liable to refund the amount. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and costs?
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and A2. On opposite party side opposite party No.2 filed document and marked as Ext.B1 to B4.
Issue No.1:
The complainant adduced evidence before the Fora by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of by his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version.
The complainant was cross examined as PW1 by the opposite parties. The document Ext.A1 marked on his part, to substantiate his case. According to the complainant he paid Rs.2,000 as temporary admission fee (Cash Receipt No.827) to opposite party No.1. In Ext.A1 dated 30-06-17 to shows that PW1 paid the amount to opposite party No.1 and to state that his daughter got admission in Sir syed Institute of Taliparamba. Since the opposite party No.1 denied to refund the amount of Rs.2,000 as temporary admission fee. there is deficiency of service on their part.
The opposite parties vehemently stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part. On the part of opposite party No.2 stated that the grievance of the complainant in this case is that the opposite party No.1 has collected amount over and above the admission fee of Rs.600 payable to the university. The 1st opposite party is liable to refund the same as they are not entitled to collect any extra amount, than Rs.600 payable to the university as admission fee. In Ext.B1 states that lbÀ Hm]vj-\p-IÄ \ne-\nÀ¯m³ B{K-ln-¡p-¶-hÀ kÀÆ-Iem-ime ^okv am{Xw AS¨v kÀ«n^n-¡-d-dp-IÄ Atem-«vsaâv eRs.n¨ tImtf-Pn kaÀ¸n¨v Xme-¡m-enI AUvan-j³ t\tS--Xm-Wv. In Ext.B3 states that lbÀ Hm]vj-³ \ne-\nÀ¯p¶-hÀ¡v Bh-i-ysa-¦n Xm¡m-enI {]th-i\w t\Sm-hp-¶-Xm-Wv. CXn-\mbn AhÀ kÀ-«n-^n-¡-d-dp-I-sfÃmw Ct¸mÄ Atem-«vsaâv eRs.n¨ tImtf-Pn lmP-cm¡n {]th-i\w Dd¸v hcp-t¯--Xm-Wv. C¯cw hnZ-ymÀ°n-IÄ addp ^okp-IÄ AS-t¡--Xn-Ã. In Ext.B4 states (Circular) students can opt for temporary admission. No fee should be levied from such students for temporary admission. It is clear that opposite party No.1 has liable to refund the amount (Rs.2,000) already received by the complainant.
Heard both sides.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents, evidence and arguments we the Fora hold that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for refund of the temporary admission fee for Rs.2,000. The amount received from the complainants’ daughter stated in ext.A1 document also. So we are of the considered view that opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,000 to the complainant. We hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1. Hence the issue No.1 found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 &3:
As discussed above the complainant requested to opposite party No.1 to refund the temporary admission fee of Rs.2,000 because the complainant daughter got admission in Sir Syed Institute at Taliparamba. So we hold that the opposite party No.1 has bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs.2,000 from the opposite party No.1. Therefore we hold that opposite party No.1 is liable to refund Rs.2,000 to the complainant along with Rs.1,000 as compensation cum cost of litigation. Thus the Issues No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complainant is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complaint along with Rs.1,000(Rupees One Thousand only) as litigation cost and compensation within the 30 days of receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the Provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
ROY PAUL MOLY KUTTY MATHEW SAJEESH.K.P.
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Cash receipt dated 29-06-17.
A2. Copy of Condition regarding the allotment dated 13-06-17.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Copy of Circular Acad/D2/2805/17 dated 20-05-17
B2. Copy of Circular Acad/D2/2805/17 dated 13-06-17
B3. Copy of Circular Acad/D2/2805/17 dated 22-06-17
B4. Copy of Circular Acad/D2/2805/17 dated 24-06-17
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
