State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms.Sheena Devkumar Ramani vs Nitte Education Trust & Anr on 19 August, 2015
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.CC/02/355
Ms.Sheena Devkumar Ramani
R/o.100, Moru Milap
15th Road,Ground
floor
Khar (W), Mumbai 400052 .Complainant
Versus
1.NITTE Education Trust (Regd.)
7th floor, Rambhavan
Complex
Kodialbai, Manglore 575 003
2. A.B.Shetty Memorial
Institute of
Dental Science
Deralakatte 574 160
Karnataka, India
...........Opponents
BEFORE:
Shashikant A. Kulkarni Presiding Judicial Member
PRESENT:
Narendra Kawde Member
Mr.Devkumar Ramani A.R. for complainant
Mr.Rajesh
Maravoor-Advocate for opponent
ORDER
Per Mr.Shashikant A. Kulkarni Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act in short).
1. Complainant is a consumer and opponent is service provider within the meaning of CP Act. In the year 2001, as per demand by taking of token amount of Rs.5.0 lac opponent reserved BDS seat in the college run by the opponent institution.
Complainant avers in the complaint that for some technical reasons, the admission of the complainant in the college at Navi Mumbai run by the opponent was cancelled.
2. In October 2001, complainant received a call that the college will commence on 08/10/2001. There was deficiency in hostel facility. It became difficult for the complainant to stay. College commenced from 9th October 2001. Complainant attended the college for few days. Assurance was accordingly given earlier. Complainant was interest in BDS course only and ready to pay the course fees.
3. Father of the complainant went for cancellation of admission because of deficiencies in hostel facility. It is alleged that the opponents agreed to refund the amount and to hand over the documents. Opponent was under obligation to refund the documents as on 22/11/2001 when the complainant left the college. After persuasion, opponents agreed to send original documents to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Complainant could not get it from the Bangalore College. She went to opponent.
She suffered harassment. Complainant therefore alleges that opponent received an amount of Rs.12 lac including Rs.5 lac at the initial stage and claims compensation that opponents be directed to refund amount and pay compensation.
Complainant relied on several documents, which are mostly not disputed.
4. Opponents filed written version as on 09/09/2003 to contest the claim. Complainant was not resident of Karnataka State, where admission to BDS course was asked for, for the academic year 2001-02. Institute of opponent no.1 at Bangalore, namely, opponent no.2 offered a seat of BDS Course from Management -NRI quota for US dollars 30,000 as per the approval. Complainant accepted the offer and remitted Rs.5 lac. For balance over Rs.7,15,000/-, complainant issued the cheques.
As per the guidelines of Rajiv Gandhi University last date of admission was 30/09/2001 with late fees upto 30/10/2001. The College was required to send list of all admitted students in a prescribed format to the University. On 30/10/2001 admission was closed to BDS course. List along with original documents was sent on 28/11/2001. In first week of December, 2001, father of the complainant requested opponent no.2 to withdraw the complainant from BDS course, since the last date of admission was over. Their request could not be considered. The amount paid to the institution are institution fees and not for rendering services. One seat of BDS course for academic year was cancelled by Rajiv Gandhi University from NRI quota available to opponent no.1 institution. Complainant also did not pay remaining amount. Opponent relied upon documents.
5. Complaint was put in sine die list. Recently, it was taken out from sine die list and the parties were noticed. Complainant is represented by Authorized representative Mr.Devkumar Ramani. Opponent was represented by Advocate Mr.Rajesh Maravoor.
6. We have gone through the material on record and affidavits filed by the parties.
There is no proof about payment of over Rs.12.47 lac including Rs.5 lac.
However, there is no dispute that Rs.5 lac were paid by the complainants parent at the time of admission to BDS course for reserving a seat from Management-NRI quota.
7. Question that most agitated, was as to whether opponent, as an education hub running educational institutions in different States, in withholding the amount taken, may be as advance for reserving seat from Management-NRI quota, even after the complainant withdrew the admission and joined some other institution in the said academic year, for example, other course or otherwise, has committed deficiency in service.
8. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and giving serious thought to the question, posed supra, we found that there is no fault on the part of the opponent to refuse to refund the amount of Rs.5 lac because the seat under Management -NRI quota claimed by the complainant after accepting the offer of opponent no.2- institution for the academic year 2001-02 had remained vacant as per their letter 26/02/2015 issued by Rajiv Gandhi University to Principal of opponent no.2. As per this letter, final admission approval list was done on 22/07/2002 out of sanctioned strength of 100 only 98 students approval was done and in that admission approval list, name of Ms.Sheena Devkumar Ramani is not found. Thus, including the seat surrendered by Ms.Sheena Ramani, two seats remained vacant during the entire course. Therefore, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 19th August, 2015.
[ Shashikant A. Kulkarni] PRESIDING MEMBER [ Narendra Kawde] MEMBER Ms.