Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— The opposite party No. 1 in Consumer Case No. 563/1994 before the Visakhapatnam District Forum is the appellant before us questioning the order of that District Forum dated 25.10.1997 partly allowing the same and directing the appellant herein to pay to the complainant (first respondent herein) a sum of Rs. 6,250/- within two months together with interest @ 15% per annum if the same was not paid within two months from the date of the order and also costs of Rs. 500/-.

2. The complainant is father of E. Kiran Kumar who applied for a seat in the Post Graduate course run by the appellant for a degree of Master of Computer Application (MCA Course for short). It is not in dispute that MCA course is for three years and the appellant college is affiliated to the Andhra University. E. Kiran Kumar was interviewed and selected for admission by the appellant and was asked to remit Rs. 15,000/- towards tution fees for the first year. The complainant who accompanied him did not come prepared to pay the entire amount and was ready to pay Rs. 10,000/-, he was asked to remit the same towards part fee for the first year and he paid the same on the same day and that is not disputed by the appellant. E. Kiran Kumar was then admitted and was given time to produce the original certificates like Transfer Certificate etc. It is also not in dispute that E. Kiran Kumar attended classes and participated in internal evaluation and pursued studies for about three months. The complainant addressed a letter dated 5.5.1994 to the appellant requesting refund of part of consideration paid by him on the ground that the original certificates which had to be produced by E. Kiran Kumar could not be produced. The appellant in its reply letter dated 9.5.1994 refused to refund the same and on the other hand required him to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant thereafter got issued a lawyer notice dated 30.6.1994 to the appellant which was received by it on 1.7.1994. As there was no response from the appellant, the complainant approached the Visakhapatnam District Forum complaining that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant for default in arranging refund of consideration paid on the ground that it retained the tution fees for the first year without rendering commensurate service.

3. In the counter filed by the Principal on behalf of the appellant it is stated that the candidate E. Kiran Kumar gave an undertaking on 9.3.1994 requesting for one week time for submission of Transfer Certificate and other original certificates and that he should be allowed to sit in the classes at his own risk, and that he was accordingly allowed to sit in the classes on payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards part of annual tution fee and on his promise to pay the balance of Rs. 5,000/- within one month. It is also stated that he attended classes and submitted assignment books for the purpose of internal evaluation as a part of the scheme of the examinations prescribed by the Andhra University, to which the appellant College was affiliated. It is also stated that at the time of submission of the application by E. Kiran Kumar he and his father were given the rules and regulations of the appellant and that in the said rules, it is specifically mentioned in Clause (e) that “fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances”. It is further stated that E. Kiran Kumar left the appellant college after attending the classes on his own failing to produce the transfer certificate and other certificates in original as promised by him. On that basis on behalf of the appellant it is contended that the complainant was not entitled to get back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- paid towards part of tution fee both in view of the rule position as well as the fact that his son E. Kiran Kumar attended the classes and received tution and also submitted consignment work as part of internal assessment. It is also stated th