State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nirav Bakulbhai Pandya vs Authorized Signatory on 4 August, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 4th OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER
SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
Appeal
No.777/2010
Nirav Bakulbhai Pandya
A/a 23 years,
Permanent Resl:
C/o.B.A.Pandya, 5, Sahyog Society,
Behind Parekh
College,
Mahuva, Bhavnagar District,
Gujarat Stage,
At Present: C/o.Suresh Joshi
Krishna Vihar/202, Behind
Tatat Compound, Eirla
Bridge,
S.V.Road, Andheri (W),
Mumbai - 400 058.
(By Shri/Smt Party
in Person)
Authorized Signatory
International Institute of Business Studies,
Registered office:13, Paritosh Complex,
R.T.Nagar
Main Road,
Bangalore-560 032.
(By Shri/Smt.S. Raghu)
.Appellant
Complainant before the DF
-Versus-
.Respondent
Opposite Party before the DF
O R D E R
SRI. A.M. BENNUR, MEMBER This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act of 1986 by the complainant in Complaint No.2013/2009 on the file of I Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore being not satisfied with the award passed on 30-12-2009.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. Complainant after completing the graduation in Engineering in 2007, thought of joining MBA Course commenced by the OP institution.
In that regard he has paid Rs. 50,000/- as admission fee on 09-02-2008 and Rs. 10,000/- towards the hostel fee.
The course was to commence from August-2008. In the mean time, when he counterchecked to his utter shock and surprise, OP institution is not recognized by the UGC and AICTE. He felt that he is duped. Hence he wrote a letter to OP that he is no more interested to continue the said course and sought for refund of the entire amount. OP came forward to give only Rs.10,000/- not the entire Rs.50,000/-.
Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly filed the complaint.
3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP, their institution is recognized by the DEC (IGNU) and the degree issued by the said university is valid for Central Government and other jobs, in pursuance of the Notification No. 44 issued by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India. Complainant was directed to pay the tuition fee on or before August-08 in all Rs. 1,50,000/-, but he failed to do so. In the mean time, he himself addressed a letter seeking for cancellation of the admission as he is unable to pay the fee in time due to economic crisis and family problems. So there is voluntarily withdrawal from the said course and that seat fell vacant thereby OP sustained monetary loss. The admission fee once paid is not refundable. Complainant is aware of the said terms and conditions and signed the documents to that effect. As such now he is estopped from contending that OP cannot retain the said admission fee. Complaint is devoid of merit. Neither there is any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Then the litigating parties were asked to file their evidence. Though sufficient and reasonable opportunity was given to the complainant to adduce evidence he failed to do so. On the other hand, OP produced the evidence and substantiated the defence set out therein. The complainant even did not participate in the arguments and the further trial. So after hearing OP, DF was pleased to pass the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, now the complainant has come up with this appeal on the following grounds:
That though DF has held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP, but failed to refund the entire admission fee and also failed to consider the mental agony, monetary loss suffered by the complainant. The order of the DF in directing the OP to refund only Rs. 10,000/- the hostel fee is arbitrary. When OP has not imparted the education, it has no right to retain the admission fee. If the said order is not modified and the compensation as prayed is not awarded, it is the appellant/complainant who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. Among these grounds, appellant prayed enhancement of the compensation.
5. When the matter was posted for hearing the arguments, the appellant did not appear. He failed to pay the cost that was imposed. It appears appellant has no interest in prosecuting his appeal.
6. We have heard the OP on merits.
7. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under:
1.
Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper?
2. If so, whether it calls for the interference from this commission?
3. To what order?
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence, the impugned order under appeal, the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the foregoing paragraphs, our findings on Point No.1 & 2 are in negative and Point No. 3 as per final order.
REASONS
9. At the out set it is not in dispute that, the complainant approached the OP so as to get himself enrolled for MBA Course to be commenced from August-2008. In that regard he paid admission fee of Rs. 50,000/- which was not refundable. He has also paid Rs.10,000/- towards the hostel fee in the month of February-2008. Later on in the month of July-2008 on enquiry he came to know that the OP institution is not recognized by the UGC and AICTE. Immediately he contacted OP and sought for refund of his admission fee because he is no more interested to prosecute his education at their institution for MBA Course, it is not considered. Hence he felt deficiency in service.
10. On the other hand, it is specifically contended by the OP that their University is recognized under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and is a member of AIU also. Their University is also recognized by the DEC (IGNU) and the degree issued by the University is valid for Central Government and other jobs as per the Notification No. 44 issued by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India. The evidence and the arguments put forth by the OP appears to be reliable and acceptable one. On the other hand, complainant has failed to prove that the said institution is not recognized as contemplated.
11. The burden of proof is on the complainant to establish his case. Complainant has not filed the affidavit evidence to substantiate his complaint averments nor he submitted his arguments both at DF as well as before this Commission, in spite of affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity even by imposing cost. These circumstances clearly goes to show that, he is not interested to prosecute his complaint and appeal in a letter and spirit. DF has thoroughly considered each and every aspect of the matter and made a threadbare discussion and rightly come to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for the refund of only hostel fee and not the admission fee, that conclusion appears to be appropriate and judicious.
12. On the other hand, appellant/complainant has failed to show before this Commission that, the impugned order under appeal wherein he sought for enhancement of compensation is either erroneous or capricious. There is no proof that the said order suffers from legal infirmity, unsustainable in law or that it suffers from error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. We dont find any illegality or irregularity in the conclusion of the DF. Appeal appears to be devoid of merit.
Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of nature of dispute, no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER rhr*