P.K. Shamsuddin, President - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam in O.P. No. 219/95. The first opposite party is the appellant

2. Shortly stated, the allegations in the complaint are as follows:-

The Palai Municipality is running an Industrial Training Centre affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training under the Department of Labour, Government of India. The complainant joined the ITC Draftsman Civil Trade Course on payment of Rs.1,500/- towards tuition fee and studies for two months. Thereafter the complainant secured admission in the Government I.T.I. Ettumanoor t for Turner course. Accordingly the complaint ant discontinued the course at the opposite r party's I.T.C. and requested for the return of .t certificates and refund of the fees paid. The e opposite parties insisted for payment of the fun fees for two years for releasing the certificates. it The complainant had to pay the amount due to compulsion. The complainant filed a complaint before the Chairman, Municipality. But no action was taken on it. It is in those circumstances, the complaint was filed claiming refund of fee of Rs.2,010/- paid with interest.

3. The opposite party filed a version stating that as per the condition of the Municipal I.T.C. Committee and Municipal Council, the students who discontinue the course have to pay the fun fees of the first year and the tuition fees of the second year in fun and accordingly the opposite parties realised the fees due to the opposite party. They also averred that there are only 18 students who are admitted to the course per year and the complainant discontinued the studies after studying for 2 months. In the circumstances it was not possible for the management to admit a waiting list candidate to the course since by that time admission was dosed and the management was not permitted to admit any student thereafter.

4. The District Forum took the view that it would be against natural justice to demand and realise charges for the services not rendered irrespective of the fact whether the opposite parties would be put to loss iffu11 fee was not realised. In that view an order was passed directing to refund Rs. 2,010/- together with interest at the rate of 10%.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the National Commission in Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and Another where the following observation occurs at paragraph(3) of the order. .

"This is a case where there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering Co11ege. The respondent complainant Sri. Rode withdrew from the Co11ege to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering Co11ege. Nonre fund of the admission fee is not a deficincy in service. Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the co11ege after admission. It is a quid pro quo for such service."

7. We also had occasion to consider a similar question in Appeal No. 1056/95 and we also held that if the student voluntarily withdraws there cannot be any question of deficiency in service and the complainant seek refund of the fee paid by the complainant.

8. However the complainant who appeared in person submitted that not only the fee collected for the first year was not refunded but the management also insisted as a condition to return the certificate produced by the complainant payment of tuition fee for the second year also. Such insistence according to the complainant would amount to unfair trade practice. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that only 18.students can be admitted and if a student withdraws after study of two months the Management would not be able to admit another student in his place for the course. He also subm