State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Prinicipal, vs C.Saiakarsh Rao on 20 January, 2022
1
APPEAL No.191/2017
Date of Filing : 23.01.2017
Date of Disposal : 20.01.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 20.01.2022
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.191/2017 The Principal, P.M.N.M. Dental College, and Hospital Bagalkot Present Srinivas S Vanaki (By Mr S.B. Hebballi Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
Sri Saikarsh Rao S/o Dr C Ram Rao Age 20 years Occ: Student R/o Navodaya Dental College Raichur (By Mr Srinath G Kulkarni Advocate) Respondent
-:ORDER:-
Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved by the Order dated 18.03.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.27/2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bagalkot (for short the District Forum and the parties as arrayed in the consumer complaint).
2. The facts in brief as stated by the complainant at the time of raising consumer complaint under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 that he got admission in a college of OP on 20.09.2013 under 1 2 APPEAL No.191/2017 Management Quota and deposited an amount of Rs.4,22,580/-
including hostel fees etc., Thereafter, he got allotted a seat in 4th round of CET counselling to Navodaya Dental College, Raichur and thereafter he requested OP to return all documents given by him at the time of admission and OP demanded Rs.16 lakhs to return documents as he was admitted under Management Quota. In this regard, OP even failed to return Rs.4,22,580/- deposited by him at the time of admission. A legal notice caused on OP was served and has failed to comply with said notice, sought for refund of Rs.4,22,580/- deposited by him at the time of admission and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. Besides Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3. Which was contested by the OP contending that during 2013- 14 and on 03.08.2013, complainant was admitted to BDS course and at the time of admission he has paid Rs.3,75,000/- toward tuition fee for the first year, an amount of Rs.13,580/- as university fees and said amount will be credited to University which has to be recovered from the admitted student at the time of admission, Rs.31,500/- paid as hostel fees and another Rs.2,500/- as mess fees. All these fees are not returnable as per terms agreed by complainant. However, on 30.09.2013 complainant voluntarily got cancelled the admission and asked for return of the documents which have been returned on the same day. However whatever fees he has deposited are not refundable. The OPs having convinced about these terms have received original documents after cancelling admission voluntarily and now after lapse of one year raised consumer complaint with false story at the instigation of somebody else.
4. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the Consumer Complaint, District Forum held an enquiry by receiving evidence on 2 3 APPEAL No.191/2017 behalf of both thereby appreciation of materials on record held OP is liable to refund Rs.4,22,580/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.09.2013 till realisation and awarded Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs and directed that the order has to be implemented within two months from the date of the order failing which OP to pay such amount along with interest at 9% per annum from 20.09.2013 till realisation.
5. Which is now in this Appeal on the ground that the District Forum held OP deficient contrary to the facts and law since the case law on the point decided in a similar case by Hon'ble High Court in WP No.13792/2009 followed by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education case reported in 2003 (6) SCC 697 and therefore OPs are not liable to return Rs.4,22,580/- along with interest, compensation and litigation costs as ordered by District Forum is liable to be set aside.
6. The Commission heard learned counsels on record for the Appeal and we have gone through the impugned order passed by District Forum dated 18.03.2016 in CC No.27/2015 and gone through the citations relied on by the Appellant and Respondent.
7. Now to examine whether in exercise of power of section of this Commission would interfere with the impugned order for the grounds of Appeal set out in the Appeal Memo.
8. The short question herein in this Appeal would be whether complainant on facts is entitled for refund of fee deposited by him under Management Quota for the reasons that in the 4th round he was allotted a seat under Government Quota. In this regard, having been examined the impugned order in our view things would play a vital importance. Admittedly, complainant deposited Rs.4,22,580/- with OP on 28.09.2013 to the BDS course and in the meantime allotted a seat under Dental course under 4th round the CET 3 4 APPEAL No.191/2017 counselling to Navodaya Dental College, Raichur and he admittedly on 30.09.2013 voluntarily got cancelled the admission and asked for return of the documents which according to OP/Appellant as per the terms and conditions not entitled to seek refund of the fee deposited on the ground that OP college cannot give admission to any other candidate in the said place and receive fees as the entire procedure of counsel would already been offered throughout State and out of State and by such voluntarily cancellation fee amount deposited by to the college would be monetary loss since it is not a Government aided college and consequence to deny the seat to other eligible candidate. Whether such contentions on facts could be acceptable has to be examined by the Commission.
9. Admittedly, on 20.09.2013 complainant got admitted to BDS course under Management Quota and he was allotted a seat in 4th round of CET counselling in Navodaya Dental College, Raichur. Accordingly, he sought for cancellation of his admission to OP College within 1+1 month on time he was admitted a seat under CET in 4th round. It is to be noted herein that OP College failed to place any record to show that the said seat is never filled in their college by the Management Quota after cancellation of the seat by the Complainant as he was admitted to Navodaya Dental College, Raichur. The contention that OP college is not a Govt. Aided College and consequence would be denied a seat to another eligible candidate is unacceptable because it is open for the Management to filled the said seat vacate on account of voluntarily cancellation of complainant is one thing and another thing would be OP college failed to place any record to show that the vacancy accrued on account of such cancellation was keep vacant or filled under Management Quota subsequently.
4 5 APPEAL No.191/201710. OP college admitted that Rs.3,75,000/- is paid as the tuition fees of one year it is to be noted herein that complainant was never taught by the team of said college commencing syllabus for the said semester with year as the case may be. It is admitted by the OP Rs.13,850/- paid towards university fee and said amount paid by the complainant would be credited to university since the complainant got allotted a seat under CET counselling as such question of retaining said fee on account of vacating seat by the said college does not arose at all. Admittedly, complainant has paid Rs.31,500/- as hostel fee and Rs.2,500/- as mess fee. It is to be noted herein that he was deposited amount on 20.09.2013 and thereafter within 1+1 months of time allotted a CET seat in 4th round by Government of Karnataka and allotting a seat in Navodaya Dental College, Raichur. Under such circumstances, he admitted to hostel or having food in the said hostel is again not arise at all. In such circumstances, at the very outset this Commission said that facts would play vital importance.
11. Learned counsel for Appellant/OP relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 18.03.2014 passed in WP No.13792/2009 (Education-RES) between Miss Smruthy B S Vs B A Pandu Memorial R V Dental College and Hospitals and another wherein it was held by the end of Paragraph 12 and 13 that Supreme Court never ruled that a college cannot demand the student who leaves in midstream for payment of balance fee of the whole course........... without doing so of the BDS course, she has given up the seat in the midstream therefore, the time has come for the Government to make necessary amendment to the rules to pluck such loopholes. In this case, facts are entirely different the Hon'ble High Court followed by the decision in Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs State of Karnataka and others has clarified that Petitioner has given up the seat in midstream and in such circumstances, on account of her admitting 5 6 APPEAL No.191/2017 to MBBS course she not only caused loss of revenue to the college and deprived a seat for another eligible student who was willing to become a dentist.
12. We have also gone through this judgement carefully, wherein could see that after studying BDS course of more than 7 to 8 months since she secured MBBS seat in the next Academic year in order to join the medical college seeks for cancellation of her BDS seat allotted either Management Quota which would certainly not only caused loss of revenue to the college but also deprived a seat for another eligible student who was willing to become a dentist. Whereas in a case on hand facts are entirely different complainant was admitted in the month of August under Management Quota and in the month of September he was allotted a seat under CET on 4th round counselling sought for cancellation of his admission under Management Quota. In such circumstances, at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that OP/Appellant put to monetary loss and yet another aspirant dentist deprived of a seat to be allotted in the said college under Management Quota. It is therefore, OP/Appellant is bound by Circular and Guidelines issued by Government of Karnataka, University grants Commission and ratios laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble NCDRC, State Commissions from time to time and in this regard, learned counsel for Complainant/Respondent rightly submitted that should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission could not be shown by OP/Appellant and in this regard, it would be appropriate to refer here a decision of this Commission in the case of New Horizon College of Engineering and others Vs. Ranjitha M decided in Appeal No.2056/2018 dated 08.01.2019 wherein the student attended 8 classes till 21.08.2017 and she had left the institution wherein ordered to return 6 7 APPEAL No.191/2017 Rs.3,20,500/- as against Rs.3,60,500/- on different facts. Therefore Rs.3,75,000/- fees per year collected by OP/Appellant College could not be retained. Similarly the hostel fee and mess fee. However, entitled for Rs.1,000/- towards non-refundable fee as per N.P mentioned in the beginning of the application for admission. In such conclusion, Commission could not interfere in the impugned order passed by the District Commission in CC No.27/2015 except to the extent of not considering deduction of Rs.1,000/- towards non- refundable fee. Accordingly, proceed to modify the impugned order in the following terms.
Appeal is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.4,22,580/- - Rs.1000/- = Rs.4,11,580/- along with interest at 6% per annum form 20.09.2013 till realisation and do pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-towards litigation costs within 6 months from the date of receipt of this Order.
Amount in Deposit is ordered to be transferred to the District Forum for disbursement to the complainant.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
7