Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President — It is not in dispute that the complainant in OP 172/95 District Forum, Prakasam at Ongole admitted his son in M/s. Adarsha Residential College i.e. first opposite party for which the second opposite party is the Managing Director and third opposite party is supposed to be the Hon'ble Advisor, in first year intermediate course on 13.7.1994 and paid a sum of Rs. 16,600/-. On 27.7.94 the complainant's son returned to their native place in Begampet and informed the complainant that the weather did not suit him and that he does not want to continue his studies at the opposite party institution which is in Prakasam District. Thereupon the complainant on 30.7.1994 requested the opposite party No. 1 about the refusal of his son to continue his studies and requested for refund of Rs. l6.600/- as according to the complainant the opposite parties promised to refund the same in the event of the complainant's son discontinuing his studies in the first opposite party institution. But the opposite parties refused to refund the same as evidenced by Ex. A-4 letter dated 18.4.1995. Therefore the above compliant was filed for refund of Rs. 16,600/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 13.7.1994 till realisation.

2. The opposite parties in their version stated that alongwith the complainant’s son one D. Sridhar came to the college and although the opposite parties are not willing to admit the complainant’s son, but the said Sridhar brought pressure and ultimately the complainant's son was admitted and the said Sridhar signed on the application form Ex. B-1. The first opposite party is collecting Rs. 7,600/- towards tuition fee for the first year intermediate course and Rs. 9,000/- towards hostel charges and the same was collected from the complainant. According to the terms and conditions of the application form, the opposite party is not liable to refund any amount if the student discontinued his studies voluntarily. But the complainant discontinued his studies from 27.7.1994 i.e. after 14 days of admission. As he discontinued his studies on his own accord, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The District Forum held that the application form was not signed by the candidate and it was also not signed by the Managing Director, which was left blank. It therefore cannot be said that the complainant's son accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the application which does not bear the signature of the candidate. It is further found that there is no material to show that there was no proper coaching or that there is any defect in the facilities provided in the hostel. But as the student studied only for 14 days, the District Forum in equity directed the opposite parties to refund 2/3rds of the tuition fee i.e. Rs. 5,067/- and 5/6th of the hostel charges i.e. Rs. 7,500/- in all a sum of Rs. 12,067/- with interest at 18% p.a. and also awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that according to the terms and conditions of the admission, the opposite parties are not liable to refund any of the amounts. But it is to be seen that the application form said to be signed by one Mr. Sridhar is meant for lady student and the same was not signed by the applicant or by the Managing Director of the institution which were left blank. As it was held by the National Commission in Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Another, III (1994) CPJ 160 NC that the admission fee cannot be refunded, but so far as the tuition fee is concerned it is quid pro quo for such service. We are therefore satisfied that the District Forum rightly directed refund of 2/3rds of the tuition fee and 5/6ths of the hostel charges.

6. Moreover during the pendency of the appeal by interim order dated 28.8.199