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



The Principal, Annai Fathima Institue of Hotel Catering Administration, Madurai v/s L. Rajesh Kumar

    F.A. NO.264 of 2006 {Against O.P.No.511 of 2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Madurai}

    Decided On, 28 November 2008

    At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai

    By, HON'BLE THIRU JUSTICE N. KANNADASAN
    By, PRESIDENT THIRU PON. GUNASEKARAN B.A.
    By, B.L.
    By, MEMBER - I

    For the Appearing Parties: M/s. V. Sanjeevi, Mr. P. Rajendran, Advocates.



Judgment Text

N. KANNADASAN J.


1. The appellant herein is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum.


2. The complainant has approached the District Forum under the following circumstances:-


According to the complainant, he has joined the course conducted by the opposite party namely Hotel Management and Catering Science. Duration of the course is two years. According to him, he has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards course fee and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards donation and he has signed certain blank papers. Later on, as he has not joined the course, the amount was not repaid and hence the complaint.


3. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that complainant has paid only Rs.15,000/- by way of course fee and out of which uniform worth about Rs.3,800/- was handed over on 27.07.2002 itself and when the course has commenced on 02.08.2002, the complainant has not joined the course and on the contrary on 05.08.2002 he has made a request for the refund of the same. It is also contended that as per the Prospectus and Declaration Form, it is one of the condition that for any reason the student is not in a position to continue the course, he is not entitled for the refund of the same.


4. The District Forum has allowed the complaint, as against which the present appeal is filed.


5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party and there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant.


6. A perusal of records discloses that the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.15,000/- as evidenced in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and there is no proof adduced for the payment of Rs.25,000/- by way of donation. Even the District Forum has not believed the stand of the complainant about the payment of donation of Rs.25,000/-. The District Forum has also rendered a finding to the effect that the opposite party has delivered the uniform valued about Rs.3,800/-. In the said circumstances, the only question to be resolved is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the balance course fee paid by him.


7. It is useful to refer Ex.B1 which is the Prospectus and Ex.B2 which is Declaration Form. In the Prospectus, it is clearly indicated that if the student has not joined the course, he is not entitled for refund of fee. Even though the District Forum has rendered finding with regard to the Ex.B2 namely Declaration Form, signature of the student would have been obtained without filling up the relevant column, the said finding cannot be acceptable due to the fact that similar condition is set out even in the Prospectus namely Ex.B1. In Ex.B3, dated 05.08.2002 viz., within the three days from the commencement of the course, the complainant?s father has written a letter to effect that he was not in a position to spent further amount for the education of his son and accordingly requested for repayment of the fee of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the certificates handed over by him. It is not in dispute that the certificates as required by the complainant?s father were already handed over. The refusal on the part of the opposite party for the refund of the course fee is concerned, in our opinion that would not constitute as deficiency in service in the light of Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. The Hon?ble National Commission in its decision render in ?Ramdeobaba Engineering College? Vs. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and Anr? reported in ?III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC)? and ?International Institute of Information and Technology? Vs. Sumer Singh? reported in ?II (2005) CPJ 233? held that when a student who has voluntarily discontinued the studies, he is not entitled for the r

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

efund and the same would not constitute the deficiency in service. 8. In the light of the above reasons, we are not accepting the reason of the District Forum in allowing the complaint. 9. Hence the appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside. 10. The mandatory deposit paid by the Appellant may be refunded on filing necessary Memo in this regard.
O R