State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms.Jellipally Ramya ,Hyderabad. vs M/S. Tirumala Engineering College, ... on 18 February, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. F.A.No.907/2011 against C.C.No.160/2010, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. Between: Ms.Jellipally Ramya , D/o.J.Venkataramana, R/o.Flat No.105, Shiva Towers, H.No.1-10-245, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Complainant And M/s. Tirumala Engineering College, Represented by its Principal, Situated at Bhogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. Respondent/ Opp.party Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.V.Hariharan Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.K.Sarwabhouma Rao QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, And SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member).
*** The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal against order dt. 11.7.2011 of the District Forum, R.R.Dist. made in C.C.No.160/2010.
For the sake convenience the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is as follows:
The complainant joined the opposite party college during the academic year 2008-2009 for pursuing B.Tech(CSE) course. The complainant was admitted in the opposite party college under Management Quota. The complainant paid the tuition fee of Rs.3,32,000/- @ Rs.83,000/- p.a. for the entire course of four years, in advance. The complainant was allotted Roll no.08C21A0529. The college is far from her residence. Subsequently, the complainant had to drop out from the college and discontinued her studies, on the advise of the doctors, due to her ill health caused by allergy due to smoke emitted by the bus.
The further case of the complainant is that she made applications dt.24.1.2010 and 8.2.2010 addressed to the management of the opposite party college seeking refund of tuition fee for the third and fourth years to the tune of Rs.1,66,000/-. The opposite party has not refunded the amount and kept the amount with them unlawfully.
The complainant wanted to join the B.Pharmacy course in the college nearby to her house. The complainant has made applications dt.26.10.2009 and 21.1.2010 seeking issuing of Transfer Certificate but she was made to run from pillar to post to get a simple Transfer Certificate. At last the management of the opposite party has issued a certificate on 25.1.2010 with abnormal delay and by that time, admissions in all the colleges closed and she was constrained to forego one academic year. The management of the opposite party is entirely responsible, for the said loss sustained to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to seek damages to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, for causing mental agony and loss of academic year and Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency in service . Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, opposite party filed counter/written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that during June, the complainant was given admission into B.Tech course under Management Quota on agreed yearly tuition fee of Rs.83,000/- per year. She paid an amount of Rs.83000/- towards the fee for the year 2008-2009 on 12.6.2008 and she was admitted into the course. The other three years fee is become payable during July 2009, 2010 and 2011. During February,2009 the father of the complainant, approached the college authorities, requesting to issue Tuition Fee No Due Certificate stating that he had approached nationalised bank for an educational loan and that if No Due Certificate is given the bank would process the application faster and after release of the loan, he would pay the remaining amount in lumpsum and in advance. The college authorities believed the version of the father of the complainant thinking that it would receive the entire tuition fee in lumpsum in advance, accordingly, out of faith, the management has given the Tuition Fee No Due Certificate dt. 16.2.2009. Subsequently, the complainants father did not pay the said amount, though promised to pay the same, after releasing of the sanctioned loan.
The complainant was not diligent in prosecuting her studies properly and used to involve in some embarrassing situations, which this opposite party is not inclined to disclose, keeping in view the welfare of the complainant. However it is necessary to state that even on 15.12.2008, she addressed a letter to the opposite party expressing her repentance, regarding the incident took place on 13.12.2008 and gave undertaking not to repeat such incidents. Thereafter also some more incidents happened and the complainants father felt that it is not desirable to continue her studies in the opposite party college and ultimately on 21.1.2010 he addressed a letter to the opposite party college stating that she discontinued her studies due to her alleged ill health and requested to issue Transfer Certificate . This opposite party did not receive the alleged letters dt.
26.10.2009 and 24.1.2010 which are subsequent fabrications, as an after thought without any truth. The management of the opposite party college was demanding the complainants father to settle the fees claim, in view of the liberal attitude of the management in giving the T.C. due to the circumstances then prevailing , though the fee was not paid. Since the college is demanding to make atleast some substantive payment, the complainant and her father as a counter blast resorted to this false complaint to evade the payment due to the college. Except Rs.83,000/- that was paid on 12.6.2008, the complainant did not make any payment. The alleged legal notice dt. 31.5.2009 was never served on this opposite party and was not received by it. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to this opposite party.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and also filed evidence affidavit of her father J.Venkataramana and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the opposite party, C.Dayanand the principal of the college filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material placed on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.5000/- on the ground that the complainant failed to prove that she paid the entire fees for the four years and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the Transfer Certificate.
Aggrieved by the above said order , the complainant preferred the above appeal urging that the order of the District Forum is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. That the District Forum ought to have seen that Exs.A1 and A2 are the proof enough to show that the appellant has paid the amounts to the respondent herein. That the District Forum ought to have seen that Exs.A11 and A12 are bank Statements showing the withdrawal of amounts for the purpose of making payments to the respondent, and stands co related. That the District Forum ought to have seen that the respondent has falsely taken a plea of non receipt of Exs.A3 and A8, which are letter addressed by the appellant herein to the respondent, and the certificate issued by the postal authorities confirming the delivery of the notice to the respondent is enough to show that the respondent has been served with notice. That the District Forum misconstrued Ex.B1 and has not properly understood in which circumstances the said letter was issued by the appellant. That the District Forum ought to have seen that the appellant has lost her precious academic year, due to non issuance of Transfer Certificate by the respondent and as such the District Forum ought to have held that the respondent is liable to pay damages to the appellant for causing loss of academic year. Therefore the order of the District Forum is erroneous, unsustainable under law and is liable to be set aside.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that during June, 2008 the complainant was given admission into B.Tech course, under Management Quota, on agreed yearly tuition fees of Rs.83,000/- per year. The contention of the complainant is that she paid Rs.3,32,000/- towards the fee for entire four years course. But, according to opposite party, the complainant paid only Rs.83,000/- under Ex.A1. In view of the above denial of the payment alleged to have been made by the complainant, the burden is on the complainant to prove that she paid Rs.3,32,000/- towards the fees for the entire four years course. In order to prove the same, the complainant filed Ex.A1 receipt for Rs.83,000/- and Ex.A2 Tuition Fee-No Due Certificate. Exs.A11 and A12 are the statement of accounts relating to the parents of the complainant. As stated above, the opposite party admitted receipt of Rs.83,000/- under Ex.A1 receipt. Admittedly, the complainant has not filed any receipts to show that they paid Rs.2,50,000/-, apart from Ex.A1.
Exs.A11 and A12 show that the parents of the complainant have withdrawn Rs.50,000/- on 12.1.2009 from ING Vysya Bank, Himayath Nagar Branch, Rs.1 lakh on 4.2.2009 from HDFC Bank, Himayat Nagar Branch and Rs.1 lakh on 6.2.2009 from ING Vysya Bank, Himayath Nagar Branch.
Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that these amounts were paid to the opposite party towards the balance of the tuition fees, as admittedly the complainant did not obtain any receipts for the alleged payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the opposite party. No explanation is offered by the complainant, for not obtaining receipts for the alleged payment of Rs.2,50,000/-
to the opposite party. It is in the common knowledge that any amount paid to any educational institution, towards the tuition fee , receipts will be passed by the institution for the payment of tuition fee. Therefore, the conduct of the complainant in not obtaining the receipts from the college for the huge payment of Rs.2,50,000/- is contrary to the conduct of a prudent person. If really she paid those amounts, nothing prevented her from obtaining the receipts. It is not the case of the complainant that she used to demand for receipts for the earlier payments, at the time of subsequent payments. Under these circumstances, the contention of the complainant that she paid Rs.2,50,000/- after drawing the same from the bank cannot be believed.
Further, the complainant is relying on Ex.A2 No Due Certificate to show that she paid Rs.3,32,000/- towards the fee for four years course. While admitting issuing of Ex.A2 No Due Certificate, the opposite party explained the circumstances, under which, Ex.A2 letter was issued. The opposite party contended that they have issued Ex.A2, on the request of the father of the complainant, so as to enable him to obtain educational loan from the nationalized bank. There is no contra evidence on record to show that the said explanation offered by the opposite party for issuing Ex.A2 certificate is not believable.
The contention of the complainant is that her father has given another letter dt.24.1.2010 vide Ex.A6 to the opposite party requesting to refund Rs.1,66,000/-. The opposite party denied receipt of original of Ex.A6 letter. The complainant has not placed any evidence in proof of the receipt of the original of Ex.A6 letter by the opposite party. It is the contention of the opposite party that this letter has been fabricated one and that fabrication is proved by the contents of the letter itself. The District Forum accepted the said contention giving cogent reasons at para 10 of its order. We fully agree with the reasoning given by the District Forum for holding that Ex.A6 is fabricated one, only to substantiate the claim of the complainant.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove that she paid Rs.1,66,000/- on different dates, to the opposite party.
The next contention of the complainant is that there is deficiency in service in not issuing the transfer certificate immediately after her application and by the time she obtained the transfer certificate, the admissions in the colleges are over, as a result, the complainant lost one academic year, therefore the opposite party is liable to pay the damages or compensation , for the loss caused to her. In support of the above case, the complainant relied on Ex.A3 letter dt. 26.10.2009 addressed by the father of the complainant to the Principal of opposite party college for issuing of Transfer Certificate etc. The opposite party denied the receipt of Ex.A3 letter. The complainant did not file acknowledgement of the opposite party in proof of the fact that the complainants father delivered this letter to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore failed to prove that Ex.A3 is received by the opposite party. The opposite party themselves admitted receipt of Ex.A4 dt.21.1.2010 and issuing of Ex.A5 Transfer Certificate on 25.1.2010. The opposite party would have admitted receipt of Ex.A3 letter as in the case of Ex.A4 letter, if they really received the same.
Along with the appeal, the complainant filed letter dt.15.2.2012 issued by the Post Master, Hyd. Jubilee HO., wherein the Postal Department stated THE RL WAS DELIVERD TO THE ADDRESSEE ON 30.12.2011 FROM GHATKESAR PO . In the complaint as well as in the appeal grounds the complainant is shown as resident of Shiva Towers, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. Nowhere it is mentioned that she and her parents have ever resided at Ghatkesar. As seen from the letter of Post Master, the RL was delivered to the addressee on 30.12.2011. Obviously, the RL delivered on 30.12.2011 from Ghatkesar Post Office does not pertain to either Ex.A3 letter or Ex.A8 legal notice. Therefore even if the postal letter dt.15.2.2012 filed by the appellant/complainant is taken into consideration, that does not show that either Ex.A3 letter or Ex.A8 legal notice were received by the opposite party. Therefore, the postal letter is of no help to the appellant.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The appellant/complainant is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the respondent/opposite party towards the costs of this appeal.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt.
18.2.2013