State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Principal, Academy Of Management ... vs Sri Jitendra Kumar Panda, on 7 October, 2022
I
STATE CONSUMER DISPIJTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ODISHA, CLJTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 of 2011
(Frorn an order dated 05.07 .2011 passed by the District
Forum, Berhampur in Consumer Cornplaint No.
29t20t0)
Principal,, Academy of Management Studies,
Prasanti Vihar Pubasasan, Kausalya Gang,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Odisha-75 1002
Appellant.
-Versus-
Sri Jitendra I(umar Panda, aged about 20 years,
S/o - Sri Harasingha Panda, Village-Charehika,
P.O.-Belhur, Ps. Dharakote, Dist. Ganjam,
Odisha
Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellants- Sri Shivsankar Mohanty,
Sri Debapriya Pradhan.
Counsel for the Respondent- Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra,
Sri Laxmi Narayan Dash
I'RIISIINT:-
Sri Dillip Ku. Mohapatra, Member.
Sri Hemant Ku. Mohanty, Member.
2DATE OF HEARING-16 .08.2022 DATE OF ORDER. 07- IO -2022 ORDEIT Learned counsels for the appellant and respondent are present. Heard the learned counsels of Appellant and Respondent at length.
This is an appeal filed by Appellant/Opposite Pafty, challenging the order of Dist. CDR Commission, Berhampur in C.C. I\o.2912010 passed on 05-07-2}ll.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent is that he took admission in the Academy of Management studies, Prasanti Vihar, Pubasasan, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar for the Acadernic session 2009-
11. At the time of admission, the Complainant/Respondent was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.16,000/- along with Rs.200/- towards counselling charges and the Complainant/Respondent deposited the same through Bank Draft on Dt.20-08-2009 and was further instructed to deposit a sun-r of Rs.55,000/- towards Hostel fees in advance. Accordingly, complainant paid the said an'rount vide Bank draft No.98143 Dt.23-08-2009 ancl O.P/A1r1,lcllarrt issucd nr()ncy receipl No. li(16 (11.2.9-0E-2.009. Tlrr: s:rirl amount of Rs.55,000/- has been received by the O.P./Appellant towards M.B.A. (Ist year) fbr the Hostel 1-ee bearing Regd. No. 085. Again the 3 Complainant was instructed to deposit Its.85,000/- only towards course fee and accordingly, the Complainant deposited Rs.85,000/- vide Bank draft No.981432 Dt.28-03-2009 and o.p./Appellant has issued money receipt No.865 Dt.29-03-2009. In the meantime, the Cornplainant being selected by the Selection Committee, got an appointment as Postal Assistant in Aska Division in the Depaftment of Post. Thereafter, Complainant/Respondent requested the Opposite Party/Appellant fbr issuance of College Leaving Certificate and Transfer Cerlificate and got the same on Dt. 18-12-2009 by depositing of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No.1l2748 Dt.l7-12-2009 and o.P./Appellant issued money receipt No.686 Dt.l7-12-2009. The Complainant got admission into the institution of the O.P./Appellant on dt.29-08-2009 and left the institution on dt.18-12-2009. During the said period the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.1,76,000/- with the O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the paft of the Opposite Party/Appellant the Complainant/Respondent prayed to direct the O.P./Appellant to refund Rs.1,76,000/- towards course fees, hostel fee etc. and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The Opposite PartylAppellant did not appear and was set ex- pafte.
4
After hearing the case, the learned forurn below allowed the complaint of the complainant and passed ex-parte judgrnent against Opp. Party and directed the Opp Party to refund Rs.85,000/- together with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within one rnonth of receipt of the Order.
Challenging the impugned ex-parte order, the Appellant/Opp. Parly has filed the present appeal.
During the course of hearing, counsel for the appellant Academy Institute submitted that Respondent/Cornplainant withdrew fiom the Appellant's Institute to join in Govt. service voluntarily. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Institute and non-refr-rnd of fees collected is not a deficiency in service and adrnission lbe is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after adrnission and it is a qr"rid pro quo fbr such service. The Appellant's Institute is not debarred from collecting the entire fees in advance and it has not been pleaded anywhere that a student is entitled to get refund, if he leaves the course midstream. Further stating that as per Clause-K of the undertaking/admission Rule of the Appellant's Institution, if any student discontinues the course on personal grounds, 5 the payment already made shal1 be forfeited and clearance shall be issued only after clearance of total course fee,r if any. The .It Respondent/Complainant is well aware of these Rules and acknowledged the same. In view of the undertaking dated 29-08-2009, he is not entitled for any refund.
The Appellant prayed that the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant could not have been enterlained by the Consumer Forum. Since there was no deficiency in service, the Consumer Forum was not competent to enterlain the complaint. The grievance/dispute could only have been redressed by filing appropriate proceeding before a competent court of law. As per the undertaking given by the Respondent/Complainant all disputes regarding admission and any other matter relating to the College would be subject to jurisdiction of Civil Courls at Bhubaneswar. Therefore, the Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forurn had no jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Dispute.
On perusal of the records, we find that on 16.09.2010 the appcllant was sct- cxpat'te atrd on 05.07 .201 1 the learnecl folr-un Lrelow passed the ex-pafie order directing the O.P to refund Rs.85,000/- together with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within one month of receipt of the Order.
6
We find from DFR that Appellant has not filed its written version and therefore order has been passed by learned Forurn below against O.P ex-parte. It is also urged by the appellant that the principles of natural justice have not been fbllowed ar-rd due and reasonable opporlunity was not given to Opp.Party/Appellant to place its case.
Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the averments in the complaint petition and submitted that the complainar-rt has not made any complaint about the standard of education, faculties and hostel accommodation. The case of the complainant is that as because he got the job, he Ieft the institution and clairned refLrnd of the entire deposited amount but there is no allegation of def-rciency in service on the part of the opposite party in imparling education. We find strength in the submission of counsel of the appellant.
Hence, in the interest of justice and fbr just, due and proper adir-rdication of the case, u,e allorv the appeal and set-aside the impugnecl order dt. 05-07-2011 passed in C"D. Case 29 of 2Al0 by learned Dist. Forum, Ganjarn, Berharnpr-rr and rernit back the matter tbr fresh hearing after giving due opportunity to both the parties subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- towards cost by the appellant to the Respondent/complainant.
We make it clear that on payment of Rs. 5,000/- by the 7 appellant to the Complainant, learned forum below shall accept the written version of appellant/Opp. Parly and shall dispose of the matter within two months fiom the date of receipt of this order giving due opportunity of hearing to both the Parties. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of tl-re dispute.
Both the parties are directed to appear befbre the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Comrnission, Ganjam, Berharnpur on 09. 11.2022.
Appeal is allowed. Costs as above.
Send back the DFR.
(Sri
$" ht Ku. Mohanty) (Sri Dillip ffi-. Mohapatra)
(Member) (Member)