SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.C. Vyas, President and Veena Misra, Member
PRINCIPAL, ST. THOMAS COLLEGE - Appellant
Versus
KU. PALOMI BENERJEE AND ANR. - Respondents
No. 684 of 2010
Decided on : 05-05-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Satyawan Agrawal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Nand Kumar Sahu, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that educational institutions cannot demand remaining fees without prior agreement or bank guarantee from the student, and the role of the university in fee disputes.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Education Institute - Section 15 - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically Section 15, which allows for appeals against orders of the District Forum. The court also referred to the provisions of the Act related to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and their application to the case.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant sought refund of fees and compensation for coercion by an educational institute after leaving the course mid-session. The institute denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant was required to pay the remaining fees as per the rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the educational institute liable for deficiency in service and coercion, dismissing the appeal and affirming the District Forum's order for refund and compensation.

Issues: The issues involved coercion by the educational institute for payment of remaining fees, entitlement to refund, and the role of the university in fee disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the institute's demand for remaining fees without a prior agreement or bank guarantee from the student was unjustified, and the complainant was entitled to a refund. The court also emphasized the role of the university in fee disputes.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the District Forum's order for refund and compensation was affirmed.

ORDER

Mrs. Veena Misra, Member - This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against order dated 8.10.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 239/2010 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), whereby the complaint was allowed and the OP No. 1 was directed to refund proportionate fee to the complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a., Rs. 1,000 for mental harassment and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had taken admission in the educational institute of OP No. 1 in B.Sc. Biotechnology, 1st year and had deposited Rs. 12,220 on 16.6.2008. She attended classes at OP No. 1 institute from 1.7.2008 to 31.8.2008. By that time, she received intimation that she has got admission in Genetic Science, at Oxford College of Science, Bangalore. Hence, she repeatedly requested OP No. 1 to give Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate, but despite such requests, the certificates were not provided till the complainant deposited remaining amount towards entire fees for the whole year. In this way, complainant's father had to deposit additional amount of Rs. 14,150 and only then the certificates were issued. As per averments of the complaint, the complainant and her father were coerced to deposit the additional amount as mentioned above and this act on the part of the OP No. 1 amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It was further averred that as OP No. 1 institute is affiliated to OP No. 2 it is the duty of the university (OP No. 2) to control such acts of charging exorbitant fees by OP No. 1, but the said OP also failed to provide any relief to the complainant though repeated letters were written. Both the OPs were liable in the facts of the case. Compensation was claimed.

3. The plea taken in the written version filed by OP No. 1 was that the institute was prepared to provide education to her but the complainant had left the studies in mid session on her own. As per rules of the institute the Complainant was required to deposit fee for the remaining academic period. The allegations of coercion were denied. It was averred that in the prospectus itself it was clearly mentioned that fees once deposited, will not be refunded and the certificate will be provided only after payment of entire fees. It was further averred that the complainant had received Transfer Certificate on 26.9.2009, prior to that the date of admission had expired w.e.f. 19.8.2008. So, any other student could not be admitted and the seat remained vacant for the entire session. Claiming Rs. 25,000 towards compensatory cost OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. In written version filed by OP No. 2 preliminary objection was raised that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP No. 2 as held by Hon'ble National Commission, Hon'ble High Court as well as this State Commission. It was further averred that any dispute relating to fee charged by an institute affiliated to the University does not involve the University and hence it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

5. In the impugned order, the District Forum found the objection of OP No. 2, to be genuine and dismissed the complaint against the said OP, but held the OP No. 1 liable for deficiency in service.

6. Final argument heard. Record perused.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that District Forum ought to have seen that the respondent took admission in the college with full knowledge and understanding that she would be required to pay the fee for the complete session and even if she leaves the institution in mid session the fee paid by her would not be refunded. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the District Forum should also have considered the fact that in case a student leaves in mid session and fee is to be refunded, the college would be put to loss of fee for the remaining period as in mid-sess

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top