COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 28th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1402/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT H.Umashankar,<br /> S/o M.Hulruaiah,<br /> No.8, 80ft Road,<br /> Chandra Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 40.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.H.V.Ramachandra<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Director,<br /> Oxford Group of Institutions,<br /> J.P Nagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Holla & Holla<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and return the original BAL degree and PUC marks cards and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant joined OP institution for MBA course with respect to academic year 2000-01 and paid Rs.25,000/- as fees. Complainant appeared only for first semester examination. Thereafter he has lost his eligibility to continue the said course as he has not passed the minimum required number of subjects so he was unable to complete the course and compete the said course within four years. Due to some unavoidable circumstances he was unable to continue the said course and complete it. Under such circumstances in the year 2007 he approached the OP to refund his tuition fees and so also the original PUC marks card and BAL graduation marks card by addressing a letter dated 24.09.2007. He has completed all the requirements as asked by the OP but still OP failed to refund the fees as well as the original documents. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. Hence he got issued the legal notice on 20.09.2007. Again there was no response. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Complainant has continued the course in the midstream of the year that too at his own well and wish. The said seat fell vacant, OP is unable to fill up the said vacant seat. Thus suffered monetary loss that too for no fault of it. As per the norms fixed by the AICTE OP has got a right to collect Rs.1,000/- while refunding the fees if it gets the substitute candidate for the said period for the said course but here they are unable to fill up said vacancy. Under such circumstances they are not liable to refund the fees. There is no deficiency in service what so ever on the part of the OP. Allegations of the complainant that to return the said original documents OP demanded Rs.25,000/- and misbehaved is false. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took admission at OP institution for MBA course for the academic year 2000-01 and paid Rs.25,000/- as fees. Now it is the contention of the complainant that due to some unavoidable reasons he was forced to discontinue the said course even after appearing for the first semester. It is further contended by the complainant that he has lost his eligibility to continue with the said course as he has not passed the minimum required number of subjects. He was to complete the said course within four years but he is unable to do the same. The very contention of the complainant speaks about his degree of involvement in the said study.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainant after the lapse of four years that is in the year 2007 he approached the OP by addressing a letter dated 24.09.2007 to return the fees as well as the original marks card which he has produced at the time of his admission. The copy of the said letter is produced. As per the directions of the OP, complainant obtained No Due Certificate from the library concerned but still OP failed to refund the fees and so also the original documents. Hence he got issued the legal notice on 20.09.2007 to OP. Copy of the legal notice is produced. OP replied the said notice. Complainant is not satisfied with the said reply. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that complainant himself left the college due to his non eligibility to continue the said course, it is at his own fault. When he himself is a defaulter he can’t allege the deficiency in service. It is further contended that as per the AICTE there are certain norms fixed with respect to the refund of the fees and return of the documents OP has got a right to deduct Rs.1,000/- out of the fees paid if the student discontinues the course in the middle of the term that too subject to filling up of the vacancy arisen due to the sudden withdrawal by the student like complainant. Here in this case there is no proof that the seat which fell vacant due to discontinue by the complainant for the said academic year is filled up. When that is so, in our considered view complainant is not entitled for the refund of the tuition fees. <br /> <br /> 9. As admitted by the complainant himself he did appear for the first semester but he didn’t fair well he is not able to complete the said course because of his own fault. On that ground also complainant is not entitled for the refund of the fees. Of course with regard to non-return of the original documents, we find there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When we go through para.15 of the version it shows, “in fact the opposite party asked the complainant to pay the fee which was in due for the second year before seeking the return of the marks card”. So this one defence itself goes to show that the approach of the OP is not fair. When complainant has become in eligible to continue the course after his poor performance in first semester how could OP ask the complainant to pay the second year fee that too when he is not eligible to enter second year. So this attitude of the OP also amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. The retention of the said marks card and other original documents produced by the complainant at the time of the admission which is admitted by the OP, again amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant discontinued the course, there was no need for OP to retain the said original documents that too when complainant obtained the No Due Certificate. There is some sort of carelessness on the part of the complainant also because though he produced the documents in the year 2001 he sought for the return of the same in the year 2007 that is nearly after 7 years though he expected to complete his course within 4 years. <br /> <br /> 11. Keeping this fact in mind as already observed by us complainant is not entitled for refund of the fees but he has got a right to seek for the return of the original documents like PUC marks cards and BAL graduation marks card for what ever purpose he wants. Non return of the said original documents must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence for these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to return the original PUC marks card as well as BAL graduation marks cards produced by the complainant at the time of admission and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 28th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />