Date of filing: 02.01.2018 Date of order : 05.07.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 05th day of July, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 04 / 2018
Meda Narasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu,
aged 22 years, Resident of D.No. 19/767,
Jummamaszid Street, Kadapa city. …. Complainant.
Vs.
The Principal, KSRM College of Engineering,
Tadigotla Village and Panchayat,
C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. ….. Opposite Party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 27.6.2018 in the presence of Sri G.V. Kalyan Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa for Complainant and Sri P. Ramprasad Reddy, Advocate for Opposite Party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1) The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 & 14 R/w section 2 (1) (i) (iii) (c) and (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act). The complainant praying this Hon’ble Forum to order the opposite party (a) to return the original certificates of 10th class marks memorandum, intermediate marks memorandum and intermediate transfer certificate, (b) to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the Complainant, (c) to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards negligent attitude of the opposite party, (d) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint and to grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper under the interest of justice.
2) The complainant appeared for the Engineering EAMCET in the year 2013 and got rant No. 93091 and counseling he was allotted EEE branch B.Tech. seat in the opposite party college with roll No. 139YIA 0277 allotted under fees reimbursement facility. The Complainant paid tuition fees Rs. 28,900/- and joined in the College of opposite party in the year 2013 and continued his studies till 2015 and discontinued due to his incapacity to study the course and also due to ill-health of his mother. At the time of joining the Complainant had submitted original 10th class marks memo, Intermediate marks memo and intermediate transfer certificate to the Opposite party. After discontinuation the Complainant requested the Opposite party to return the original certificates for the same the Opposite party insisted to pay the balance years of tuition fee. The Complainant says that there are no rules and regulations to demand the balance year’s tuition fee to return the original certificates. There are several guidelines issued by the AICTE not to demand the tuition fee for the left over balance years from the students for return of original certificates. Having vexed with the attitude of Opposite party the Complainant issued legal notice on 8.11.2017 but there is no response from the Opposite party. Again the Complainant issued legal notice 4.12.2017 requesting for return of original certificates. It shows negligent attitude of the Opposite party in returning original certificates of the Complainant. Hence, the Complaint.
3. Written version filed by the Opposite party. All the allegations mentioned in the complaint are false and be proved with strict evidence. It is false that the Complainant discontinued due to incapacity and due to ill health of his mother. The Opposite party’s college is unaided and self –financed institution and the college is maintaining with the tuition fees from the students only. The Complainant was admitted in the year 2013 and paid tuition fees of Rs. 28,900/- per year. In the year 2014-15 the Complainant paid 2nd year tuition fees Rs. 28,900/-. The Complainant had secured only 19 credits out of 45 credits in 1st year and 4 credits out of 22 credits in 2nd year B.Tech., totaling 23 credits out of 67 credits, both in 1st and 2nd year. As per rules in force the students, who secured minimum 26 credits out of 67 credits, would be promoted to 3rd year automatically. Once seat was allotted for the students for four years and there is no provision to fill up the dropped vacancies by the institution. If the Complainant discontinued immediately soon after completion of Phase-I of the counseling, the competent authority i.e. Convener, to take decision to fill up the same seat with another student but here there is no scope to do. As per rules an amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards tuition fee per year instead of Rs. 28,900/- paid by him towards tuition fees for continuing his studies. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department has required the Commissioner of Technical Education, A.P. Hyderabad to comply with the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as the orders of the AUICTE as detailed below vide memo No. 2912/EC/A2/2016-1, dt. 14.6.2016 of Principal Secretary to Government. The opposite party gave reply notice on 3.01.2018 with all the relevant facts. Opposite party did not act negligently towards the student. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4) The Complainant filed affidavit on 8.5.2018 and marked Ex. A1 to A5 and on behalf of opposite party Ex. B1 to B4 documents are marked. Written arguments are filed by the both parties along with citations.
5) From the above averments the following points are settled for determination :-
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not ?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party or not ?
- To what relief ?
6) Point Nos. i and ii As per Ex. A1, complaint and written version filed by both parties, it is true that the Complainant is a student of the opposite party’s college. As per Ex. A4 & A5 the Complainant paid two years tuition fees and the same was admitted by the Opposite party in his written version. As per Ex. B1 also the Complainant had paid tuition fee. Ex. B2 is the document prepared by the opposite party college. As per written version of the opposite party college clearly shows the incapacity of the Complainant in proceeding with the B.Tech., course. He had not gained credits as per the academic years. So it proves his incapacity or poor performance in his studies. The complaint and written version clearly shows that the student joined under the scheme of fees reimbursement. The student joined in EEE Branch, B.Tech., but he had no capacity to proceed with the studies. The Complainant had no capacity to understand and to continue in the course. The written version clearly proves the incapacity or poor studies of the Complainant. The Opposite party had filed Ex. B2 and B3, the rules regulations and undertaking taken by the Opposite party. The student is bound to pay the full term course fee to the Opposite party. Here due to his incapacity the student had discontinued. It is very clear by the written version of the Opposite party. As per undertaking in Ex. B2 the Opposite party had so many ways to recover tuition fees from the Complainant for the balance years. But this is not right way to withheld his original certificates. Opposite party is having undertaking of the Complainant under Ex. B2, to recover the dues if any from him. The Opposite party should file a Civil Suit against the Complainant to recover the tuition fee due by him to the management. But this is not the way to withheld the certificates of the Complainant with them.
7) The citations filed by the Complainant that the National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sastra university, Thanjavur to return original certificates of the students who had left the institution in the middle of the course, it supports the case of the Complainant. Another citation filed by the Complainant in Madras High Court bench, colleges cannot use educational qualification certificates, submitted by the student at the time of admission, as a bait to recover monetary dues as the educational certificates are not fixed deposit bonds, supports the case of the Complainant. Under the above circumstances the Complainant is eligible for return of certificates and compensation as prayed by him and at the same time there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party.
8) Point No.iii:- In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to return the original certificates of Complainant i.e. 10th class marks memo, Intermediate marks memo and Intermediate Transfer certificate, pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony, pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards negligent attitude of the Opposite party and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of the Complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 5th day of July, 2018
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
Witnesses examined for the Complainant: NIL
Witnesses examined for the Opposite party: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of Hall ticket No. 2708163 of the Complainant.
Ex. A2 Office copy of the legal notice dt. 8.11.2017.
Ex.A3 Office copy of the legal notice dt. 4.12.2017.
Ex.A4 Copy of tuition fee receipt for the 2nd year.
Ex. A5 Copy of tuitition fee receipt for the 1st year.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: -
Ex. B1 P/c of application order dt. 01.10.2013
Ex. B2 P/c of undertaking letter given by the Complainant to the KSRM Engineering College, Kadapa and affidavit.
Ex. B3 P/c of Higher Education’s department issued memo dt. 14.6.2016.
Ex. B4 P/c of reply notice issued by the principal dt. 03.01.2018
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G.V. Kalyan Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa.
- Sri P. Ramprasad Reddy, Advocate for opposite party, Kadapa.
B.V.P
