State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Principal vs Ku.Sarla Sahu on 19 December, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/13/189
Instituted on : 08.03.2013
Principal,
Fellowship School of Nursing,
Shanti Vijay Hospital, In Front of Circuit House,
Bagbahra Road,
Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
Ku. Sarla Sahu, D/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Sahu,
Resident of Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon,
P.O. Tumgaon,
Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri B. Gopa Kumar, for appellant.
Shri M.R. Kurre, for respondent.
ORDER
DATED : 19/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No,10/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had obtained admission in the college of the // 2 // appellant/O.P. for the course of Auxiliary Nursing Mid-Wife (A.N.M.) for the academic session 2011-2012. The respondent/complainant had paid an initial admission fees of Rs.10,000/- for taking admission in the said course. The appellant/O.P. assured the respondent/complainant that when the study would be started, then the respondent/complainant would be intimated by the appellant/O.P., but no information was sent to the respondent/complainant by the appellant/O.P. The respondent/complainant contacted the appellant/O.P. but no satisfactory reply was given by the appellant/O.P., hence the respondent/complainant would not attend the training classes. After sometime, the appellant/O.P. advised the respondent/complainant that she would appear in the next academic session. After depositing initial admission fees, the respondent/complainant was unable to obtain training due to non- information by the appellant/O.P. and respondent/complainant lost her one academic year and appellant/O.P. committed deficiency in service, therefore, the respondent/complainant is entitled for refund of fees of Rs.10,000/- and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. She filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Mahasamund (C..G.).
3. The appellant/O.P. filed his reply of the complaint and averred that after depositing initial fees of Rs.10,000/-, the respondent / complainant had never bothered to complete the further formalities.
// 3 // Auxiliary Nursing Mid - Wife (A.N.M.) course is an approved course of Directorate, Health Service, State Government and the allotted total intake seat for the said course to the appellant/O.P. college was 30 only. It has further been averred that the appellant/O.P. college cannot give admission to any student above the strength of 30, which was allowed by the concerned authority. The respondent/complainant had not turned up till March, 2012 for taking admission and without intimating the appellant/O.P. college anything about her study, she sent legal notice on 23.03.2012 demanding the said amount back. According to the direction of Directorate, Health Service, State Government, the last date for giving admission to the students for the said course was 30th of September every year and for academic session 2011-12, the last date for taking admission was extended upto 31st December, 2011. The respondent/complainant had never approached the Principal or the college authorities for taking admission during the intervening period from the date of deposit of the fees and date of legal notice i.e. 23.03.2012 and the respondent/complainant herself was negligent for not taking admission. The said two post was kept vacant for the whole academic year 2011-12. The respondent/complainant had put the appellant/O.P. college loss to the tune of Rs.22,500/-. The appellant/O.P. has not committed any deficiency in service. The respondent/complainant herself is responsible for not taking admission, therefore, the respondent/complainant is not entitled for // 4 // refunding back the admission fee and the complaint of the respondent/complainant was liable to be dismissed.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint.
5. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant /O.P. argued that the respondent/complainant had taken admission in the appellant/O.P. and she deposited Rs.10,000/- as initial fees for admission. After depositing the amount of Rs.10,000/- the respondent/complainant never approached the appellant/O.P. for completing further formalities and due to this act of the respondent/complainant, the appellant/O.P. could not admit any other student and seat was vacant for the whole academic session and appellant/O.P. suffered loss of Rs.22,500/-. The amount of Rs.10,000/-, paid by the respondent/complainant was only the admission fees, which is not refundable as per rules and regulations of the appellant/O.P. college and respondent / complainant had blocked seat of another student by not taking admission during the academic session. Therefore, the responsible/complainant was not entitled for refund of the admission fees and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
// 5 //
6. Shri M.R. Kurre, learned counsel for the respondent / complainant on the other hand supported the impugned order of the District Forum and submitted that it does not call for any interference by this Commission. He prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. We have heard arguments of learned counsels for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum and the impugned order.
8. It is not disputed that the respondent/complainant approached the appellant / O.P. college for admission for Auxiliary Nursing Mid- Wife (A.N.M.) course for the session 2011-2012 and she paid initial admission fees of Rs.10,000/- for the admission.
9. Learned District Forum has held in the impugned order that the respondent/complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- and registered herself in appellant/O.P. college and she had waited for information from the appellant/O.P. The appellant/O.P. did not inform the respondent/complainant and due to lapse on the part of the appellant/O.P. and due to delayed information by the appellant/O.P. the respondent/complainant could not join the classes for whole academic year. It has been observed that only appellant/O.P. is not liable for above circumstance. It has further been observed that // 6 // respondent/complainant has not explained any reason for not completing the A.N.M. Course on next academic year, but learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/O.P. to refund fees of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the respondent /complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 18.06.2011 till date of payment and has also awarded cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-.
10. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Globsyn Business School vs. Mayuri Ghosh, 2013 (3) CPR 26 (NC), has observed thus "5. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant applied for admission in the institution of O.P. and O.P. vide letter dated 10.03.2009 selected complainant for admission and asked complainant to make payment of first term tuition fees in confirmation of admission. It has specifically been mentioned in this offer letter "The fees once tendered as per the Fee Schedule will not be refunded under any circumstances". Thus, it becomes clear that as per offer letter, fees deposited by complainant upto first term tuition fees was non-refundable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Vol. CXXXIV-(2003-2) The Punjab Law Reporter - Navdeep Singh v. I.I.T.T. College of Engineering, Village Pojewal, District Nowanshahar and Ors. in which it was observed in paragraph 6 as under :-
"6. The petitioner has neither controverted the assertion contained in the written statement of respondent No.1 that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and // 7 // charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the fact of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner".
He has also placed reliance on VOLCVII - (1994-2) The Punjab Law Reporter - Raj Singh v. The Maharshi Dayanand University & Ors. in which it was observed in paragraph 10 as under :-
10. Students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents / guardians and it is so in the present case. The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may suit him at a given time. For what has been noticed, the view taken in Madhvika Khurana's case (supra) cannot stand scrutiny and consequently the same is overruled.
He has also placed reliance on W.P. No.2933 of 2011 - Amit Sadashiv Vaidya v. The Principal, K.C. College of Engineering, Kopri, Thand and ors. in which Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed as under :
"2. The rules which have been framed by the Directorate of Technical Education provide for a refund of tuition fees in certain eventualities. In so far as is material, the rules stipulate that no refund of fees except for the security of deposit can be granted where a request for cancellation of admission is received before or after the start of the academic session and the // 8 // seat cannot be filled by the institute. In the present case, the First Respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the seat which is allotted to the petitioner could not be filled upon the petitioner vacating the seat. The petitioner, as the facts will show, withdrew from the seat at 3.40 p.m. on the cut-off date which was 15 September 2010. Since the seat has remained vacant, a refund of fees is not envisaged under the rules. The college has in fact stated that during a hearing before the AICTE, when the grievance of the petitioner was taken up, the college offered on humanitarian grounds a refund of 25% fees which the petitioner refused to accept. Be that as it may, having regard to the clear provisions which have been made in the rules, no case for the grant of refund has been made out. The rules seek to balance on the one hand the refund of tuition fees to students who obtain more preferential allotments with the rights of managements. In the present case as a result of the withdrawal by the petitioner from the seat allotted, the seat would remain vacant for a period of four years. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed".
11. In the light of aforesaid judgment, it becomes crystal clear that admission fees deposited by the respondent/complainant was not refundable and respondent/complainant was not entitled to receive refund of fees only on the ground that she had not received information from the appellant/O.P. The seat of the respondent/complainant was remained vacant for the whole academic year 2011-12. As per learned counsel for the appellant/O.P, out of 30 seats, two seats were remained vacant for the whole academic year 2011-12. In such circumstance, the respondent/complainant was not // 9 // entitled to get refund of fees and learned District Forum has committed an error in allowing refund of fees to the respondent/complainant.
12. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/O.P. is hereby allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed with no order as to the cost.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/12/2013 /12/2013