w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Gurunanak Institute of Engineering and Technology, Through Principal Naredra Vasant Deshpande v/s Ku. Joshita Shriharirao Raviri

    First Appeal No. FA/488 of 2011

    Decided On, 17 July 2018

    At, Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. B.A. SHAIKH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.B. SAWARKAR MEMBER

   



Judgment Text

S.B. Sawarkar, Member.

1. The present appeal is filed against the order of the Additional District Forum, Nagpur passed in consumer complaint No. 55/2011 dated 14/10/2011 granting the complaint partly and directing the opposite party (for short O.P. ) to return the amount of Rs. 85,350/- to the complainant and further the O.P. to provide to the complainant Rs. 15,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for cost totaling to Rs. 20,000/- with a direction to comply the order in the span of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. It was complained that the complainant for admission in B.E. Course in the College of the O.P. in management quota paid Rs. 1,25,350/- to the O.P. However, O.P. gave her the receipt of the Rs. 85,350/- and did not give any receipt for Rs. 40,000/-. As she could not get the admission, she requested to return the amount and her certificates and took admission in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College for the course of B.C.C.A.

3. The complainant complained that the O.P. returned the certificates , however, did not return the amount deposited by her inspite of repeated requests. Hence, she on 01/03/2011 sent a notice which was not replied. She therefore, claiming deficiency in service filed a complaint with a prayer to declare the O.P. to have given her deficient service and further to return the amount deposited by her of Rs. 85,350/- with interest from the date of deposit and amount paid for management quota of Rs. 40,000/- from 28/08/2010 with interest at the rate of 18%. The complainant further requested to direct the O.P. to provide her Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as a cost of complaint.

4. On notice the O.P. appeared and countered the complaint stating that the complainant had requested for admission to BE-IT (Bachelor of Engineering – Information Technology). She was given the admission on 27/08/2010 when she deposited the college fee of Rs. 85,350/- with certificates. The complainant was given the admission. She attended the classes for few days. However, as she felt the course to be difficult she requested to cancel her admission by making application through her father. Hence, based on her request dated 27/08/2010 she was returned her certificates and the 50% amount of the fee of Rs. 42,675/- on 08/09/2010.

5. The O.P. submitted that as per the Director of Technology Maharashtra State Regulation Rule No. 8.9, the deposited fee is not required to be returned . However, on humanitarian ground her certificates and 50% amount was returned though the O.P. suffered loss due to the vacancy created by her cancellation. Therefore the O.P. requested to dismiss the complaint.

6. The learned Forum considered the contentions and held that the complainant paid the fees. However, the attendance sheet submitted by the O.P. has no signature. Hence, cannot be believed and when the complainant immediately took the admission in another college on 31/08/2010 it cannot be presumed that the she attended the classes.

7. The learned Forum found the receipt of returning the 50% deposited fee to be false as it had no name and class. Hence, found it to be unbelievable. Also Forum did not believe the contention of the loss of seat by the O.P., with the evidence of O.P. to be unbelievable. The learned Forum therefore, considered that the O.P. gave deficient service and hence, deserves to provide the compensation . Thus passed the order as above.

8. Aggrieved against the order the original O.P. filed appeal. Hence, it is referred as appellant. Advocate Miss Darshana Pande filed written notes of argument for appellant. The original complainant remained absent & hence, she is declared exparte.

9. The advocate for the appellant in written notes of argument submitted the same contentions as were submitted before the learned Forum and submitted that respondent took admission and attended the college till 3rd September, 2010 from 27/08/2010. The appellant denied to have taken management fee of Rs. 40,000/- and submitted that as the father of the respondent requested for cancellation of admission, in consideration to save one year, he was given time to think again.

10. The appellant’s advocate further submitted that considering the request and as per the AICTE(All India Courses for Technical Education ) norms respondent was refunded Rs.42,575/- with original documents to her father. After which respondent took admission in Ambedkar College for BCCA course for first year which indicates that her original documents were returned to the respondent.

11. The appellant’s advocate also submitted that as per Director of Technical Education rules clause No. 8.9 refund of tuition, if cancellation is done after the admission through vacancy rounds of admissions in the college, before the start of the session then entire fee becomes returnable less Rs. 1000/-. If cancellation is received after the start of academic session the entire fee less tuition fee, development fee and hostel fee, on pro data basis is returnable. When the cancellation is requested when no seat can be filled by institute then no refund except the security deposit becomes payable to the student.

12. The appellant’s advocate further submitted that as the cancellation of admission was after the start of academic session and seat could not be filled only the security deposit was returnable to the respondent as can be seen from the receipts.

13. The appellant’s advocate also submitted that the learned Forum believe the slip with no name and class of the respondent and took the father’s signature to be fake and erred in passing the order which is unsustainable and without reasons & hence, deserves to be set aside.

14. We considered the contentions and perused the papers filed before us. We find that the respondent got admission in B.E. Course for the session 2010-2011 on 27/08/2010. The attendance sheet is for the course of applied mathematics submitted by the appellant which shows that the respondent attended classes for four days and was absent in the other classes. We find that the acknowledgement receipt provided by the father says that he received all the six documents submitted by the respondent on 08/09/2010. It gets confirmed as the respondent took the admission in another college for another course.

15. The receipt of receiving Rs.42,675/- has a revenue stamp and a signature of the father of the respondent.

16. These facts clearly show that the respondent herself cancelled her admission. Hence, she cannot claim deficiency in service. Further she was returned 50% amount from the amount deposited by her. Hence, she cannot claim, the refund of full amount when she herself has cancelled the admission after the start of the classes. The Director Technical Education Rules also support the deduction of the amount from the fees. There is no evidence regarding payment of Rs. 40,000/- for admission to the college from Management Quota when the form of the respondent shows that she appeared for AIEEE with a score of 52. In such circumstances we find no reason to hold that the respondent received deficiency in service from the O.P. and deserves to get the deposited fee and also compensation for mental and physical harassment when she herself cancelled the admission.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r /> 17. We find the learned Forum could not appreciate the receipt given for certificates by the father of the respondent which is true as she took admission on the basis of the same. Her father also gave a receipt of the amount returned to him. We find therefore, that the learned Forum went beyond the rules of the Director of Education and provided the return of the fee and also the compensation to the respondent who herself cancelled her admission. Thus passing unreasonable order deserving to be set aside. Hence, we set it aside. ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order of the learned Forum is set aside. In the event the complaint stands dismissed. iii. Parties to bear their own cost. iv. Copy of the order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.
O R