State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Registrar,Karnataka, India. vs Japa Narasimha Reddykarimnagar Mandal ... on 28 January, 2014
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.579 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.2 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR. Between: The Registrar, Alliance University, Chikkahagde, Chadapura, Anekal Main Road, Bangalore-562 106, Karnataka, India. Appellant/opp.party A N D Japa Narasimha Reddy S/o.Laxma Reddy, Aged about 24 years, R/at.Algunoor village, Karimnagar Mandal and Dist., Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant M/s Sharad Sanghi & Associates Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Venkateswarlu QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Order (As per Sri T.ASHOK KUMAR Honble MEMBER) *** This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order in C.C.No.02/2012 dated 28-12-2012 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder:
The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant joined the business school of the opposite party for the course of MBA on 08-7-2011 and paid Rs.50,000/- towards registration on 17-3-2011, 1st instalment of tuition fee of Rs.3,50,000/- on 09-4-2011, hostel deposit fee of Rs.15,000/- on 09-4-20-11 and Rs.57,000/- towards hostel fee. He was granted an educational loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar and it also released first instalment and thus he paid Rs.4,72,000/- and joined the hostel on 09-7-2011 and attended the classes from the said date.
Due to poor food, he suffered ill health and was not in a position to continue the course and he approached the opposite party and expressed his desire to cancel the admission and submitted an application on 25-8-2011 and later he was permitted to leave the college and hostel and when he asked the opposite party for refund of the fees, the opposite party advised him to approach after one week and it is his case that all the original receipts were taken by the opposite party. The complainant consulted Dr.Vijay Mohan Reddy on 27-8-2011 for treatment and on 14-9-2011 he collapsed due to Epilepsy and joined Sunrise hospital, Karimnagar and took treatment and the doctors stated that the complainants health is badly affected due to brain and neurological disturbances and the complainant also consulted Dr.Murthy, Neuro physician at care Hospital, Hyderabad and he was advised regular medication and advised to take rest without any stress and he was not in a position to continue further studies. The family members of the complainant were prepared to go to opposite party for refund of fees but were surprised to receive the demand draft for Rs.51,000/- and the complainant and his family members asked the opposite party for refund of fee as per norms of UGS/AICTE and the opposite party stated that the fee amount cannot be refunded as the admission was cancelled after the classes were commenced, which is illegal.
The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party to return the fee amount and they sent reply notice stating that his request cannot be considered since no fresh admission can be filled in the vacant seat with another candidate as admission time was over. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to refund the fee amount of Rs.4,00,000/- together with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.2000/-.
The opposite party filed written version resisting the complaint. It contended that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction as the alleged cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Karimnagar. Its university is situated at Bangalore and it does not have any institution within the jurisdiction of District Forum Karimnagar and that no part of cause of action either in whole or part arose at Karimnagar and as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint has to be filed before a Forum within whose jurisdiction the opposite party carries out its business or where part or whole of the cause of action arose.
In the present case, it has its university at Bangalore and does not have branch at Karimangar and the complainant had withdrawn from the course at Bangalore and hence the complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction. It denied that the complainant suffered ill-health due to poor food and hostel facilities and stated after knowing all procedures, the complainant took admission and signed the relevant documents and he is bound by the same and cannot seek refund of the money. The registration fee and fee collected by the opposite party is non refundable as per rules and regulations of the university and only applicable amount can be refunded and stated that there is no deficiency in service and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Both sides filed affidavits reiterating their respective contentions and the complainant relied on Exs.A1 to A20 and the opposite party relied on Exs.B1 to B7.
Having heard both sides, considering the material on record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30-11-2011 together with costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid within a month from the date of receipt of the order.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum, Karimnagar had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It contended that its university is governed by a separate enactment i.e. Act of Government of Karnataka in the year 2010 and the complainant was aware of the policy, rules and regulations at the time of payment of fees and refund of fees was also mentioned in the prospectus of the university. It denied that the complainant suffered ill health due to food and unhygienic conditions at its institute and stated that the complainant created fictitious documents. The opposite party contended that the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has paid the amounts mentioned in the complaint and simply stated that the original receipts are with them. The MBA program of its university is governed by the rules i.e. No.MBA/CAT/2010-11 and as per policy No.3(c) (iii) page 48 of MBA prospectus, he got admitted in the said course and it reads as under:
a) The program fee has two components-Registration fee ad tuition fee.
b) The registration fee, once paid will not be refunded by the School of Business under any circumstances. The objective of this clause is to discourage frivolous applications.
c) The refund of tuition fee will be considered under the following conditions:
i) If a candidate withdraws from the program prior to the commencement of the program the 75% of the tuition fee will be refunded
ii) If a candidate withdraws from the program within one week after the commencement of the program, then 60% of the tuition fee will be refunded
iii) If a candidate withdraws from the program any time after one week from the date of commencement of the program, then no refund of the tuition fee will be made.
Thus it is clear from the above terms and conditions that no registration fee can be refunded and since the complainant comes under policy 3(iii), he is not eligible for refund of the entire amount.
The opposite party contended that it is not established under the UGC Act or Central Act and is a Private University established under the Karnataka state and governed by its own rules and regulations.
The opposite party contended that the complainant left the university after commencement of the course and it could not offer the vacated seat to another candidate as the time for admission was over but the District Forum had drawn adverse inference stating that it maintained a waiting list to meet such contingencies but it is quite possible that students on the waitlist would have sought admissions at another institute and in this case no one came forward to take the admission and relied on AICTE Rules and Regulations and the waitlisted candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat and the entire fee collected from the student after deducting Rs.1000/- shall be refunded to the candidate withdrawing from the program which is erroneous and prayed to allow the appeal.
Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions.
Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in facts or on law?
The main contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the District Forum, Karimnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the counsel for the opposite party relied on the decision reported in 2009 (6) ALD 157 (SC) in SONIC SURGICAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., wherein the Honble Supreme Court relied on Section 17(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for expression Branch Office and held that merely because the respondent insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh, complaint could not be filed in Chandigarh, when no part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh.
Section 17(2) would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. Whereas the complainant contended that part of cause of action arose to him within the territorial limits of District Forum, Karimnagar and as such the said Forum certainly has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As seen from the contents of the complaint, evidence affidavit, the complainant was granted an educational loan from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar for studying MBA course in the opposite partys institution. Ex.A3 fee receipt dt.9-4-2011 issued by opposite party discloses that Rs.3,50,000/- was received by it towards tuition fee vide D.D.No.686951 dated 07-4-2011 issued by State Bank of Hyderabad, and when the loan was granted by State Bank of Hyderabad and there is a mention in the sanction letter, that the amount will be sent to the opposite party institute, we are of the opinion that on account of sending the draft by SBH, Karimnagar branch part of cause of action arose at Karimnagar and hence the above decision is not helpful to the opposite party to contend that the District Forum, Karimnagar had no jurisdiction. As per Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence the territorial jurisdiction point agitated by the opposite party is not helpful for it.
The other contention of the opposite party is that its university is governed by a separate enactment i.e. Act of Government of Karnataka in the year 2010 and per its rules and regulations and refund of fees in the prospectus, the registration fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances, the refund of tuition fee will be considered as per policy No.3(c) (iii) page 48 of MBA prospectus which is as under:
The program fee has two components-Registration fee ad tuition fee.
d) The registration fee, once paid will not be refunded by the School of Business under any circumstances. The objective of this clause is to discourage frivolous applications.
e) The refund of tuition fee will be considered under the following conditions:
iv) If a candidate withdraws from the program prior to the commencement of the program the 75% of the tuition fee will be refunded
v) If a candidate withdraws from the program within one week after the commencement of the program, then 60% of the tuition fee will be refunded
vi) If a candidate withdraws from the program any time after one week from the date of commencement of the program, then no refund of the tuition fee will be made.
and hence the complaint is not entitled for refund of the amount as prayed for but however a sum of Rs.51,000/- was sent to him including the deposit fee by way of D.D. in full and final settlement.
There is no dispute that the complainant received D.D. of Rs.51,000/- and there is no dependable evidence from the opposite party that it was received in full and final settlement.
The learned counsel for the complainant relied on a decision reported in I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC) in NIPUN NAGAR v. SYMBIOSIS INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, wherein the Honble National Commission categorically held that the institutions are not entitled to retain the entire fee and if at all they can deduct some amount i.e. not more than Rs.1000/- and the balance should be refunded. In another decision in RP 1668/2012, dated 23-4-2013 in BIRLA INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI, RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v. ABHISHEK MENGI, it was held that the service provider cannot forfeit the fees (in full or part) for the services, which it has neither provided, nor the student has received such services and as such the forfeiture of such fee is not only a deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice and if there is any such term of the contract, to the contrary, the same is surely unconscionable contract, and therefore, void and not binding on the complaint. The said decisions were rendered discussing University Grants Commission on Rules and regulations which are applicable to the opposite party also. In view of those decisions, irrespective of any clauses contained in the prospectus or any other material the same cannot be considered to forfeit the amount paid by the complainant.
The complainant contended that he fell ill and attended the college for a period of one and half month and as such he was forced to leave the institute and has filed Exs.A13 to A19, medical record, to show that he has undergone treatment, whereas on the other hand the opposite party institute had not filed any material to show that the said seat was kept vacant. The District Forum had rightly deducted a sum of Rs.50,000/- for staying 1 months and since the opposite party had already refunded Rs.51,000/-, it directed the opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,99,000/- which we see no reason to interfere.
In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
jm Dt.28-1-2014.