IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Voluntary Cancellation – OP college is not a Govt. Aided College and consequence would be denied a seat to another eligible candidate is unacceptable because it is open for the Management to filled the said seat vacate on account of voluntarily cancellation of complainant is one thing and another thing would be OP college failed to place any record to show that the vacancy accrued on account of such cancellation was keep vacant or filled under Management Quota subsequently.
(2) It is therefore, OP/Appellant is bound by Circular and Guidelines issued by Government of Karnataka, University grants Commission and ratios laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Court, Hon’ble NCDRC, State Commissions from time to time and in this regard, learned counsel for Complainant/Respondent rightly submitted that should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission could not be shown by OP/Appellant and in this regard, it would be appropriate to refer here a decision of this Commission in the case of New Horizon College of Engineering and others Vs. Ranjitha M decided in Appeal No.2056/2018 dated 08.01.2019 wherein the student attended 8 classes till 21.08.2017 and she had left the institution wherein ordered to return Rs.3,20,500/- as against Rs.3,60,500/- on different facts.

ORDER

K.B. Sangannanavar, Judicial Member.—This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved by the Order dated 18.03.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.27/2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bagalkot (for short the District Forum and the parties as arrayed in the consumer complaint).

2. The facts in brief as stated by the complainant at the time of raising consumer complaint under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 that he got admission in a college of OP on 20.09.2013 under Management Quota and deposited an amount of Rs.4,22,580/- including hostel fees etc., Thereafter, he got allotted a seat in 4th round of CET counselling to Navodaya Dental College, Raichur and thereafter he requested OP to return all documents given by him at the time of admission and OP demanded Rs.16 lakhs to return documents as he was admitted under Management Quota. In this regard, OP even failed to return Rs.4,22,580/- deposited by him at the time of admission. A legal notice caused on OP was served and has failed to comply with said notice, sought for refund of Rs.4,22,580/- deposited by him at the time of admission and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. Besides Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

3. Which was contested by the OP contending that during 2013-14 and on 03.08.2013, complainant was admitted to BDS course and at the time of admission he has paid Rs.3,75,000/- toward tuition fee for the first year, an amount of Rs.13,580/- as university fees and said amount will be credited to University which has to be recovered from the admitted student at the time of admission, Rs.31,500/- paid as hostel fees and another Rs.2,500/- as mess fees. All these fees are not returnable as per terms agreed by complainant. However, on 30.09.2013 complainant voluntarily got cancelled the admission and asked for return of the documents which have been returned on the same day. However whatever fees he has deposited are not refundable. The OPs having convinced about these terms have received original documents after cancelling admission voluntarily and now after lapse of one year raised consumer complaint with false story at the instigation of somebody else.

4. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the Consumer Complaint, District Forum held an enquiry by receiving evidence on behalf of both thereby appreciation of materials on record held OP is liable to refund Rs.4,22,580/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.09.2013 till realisation and awarded Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs and directed that the order has to be implemented within two months from the date of the order failing which OP to pay such amount along with interest at 9% per annum from 20.09.2013 till realisation.

5. Which is now in this Appeal on the ground that the District Forum held OP deficient contrary to the facts and law since the case law on the point decided in a similar case by Hon’ble High Court in WP No.13792/2009 followed by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education case reported in 2003 (6) SCC 697 and therefore OPs are not liable to return Rs.4,22,580/- along with interest, compensation and litigation costs as ordered by District Forum is liable to be set aside.

6. The Commission heard learned counsels on record for the Appeal and we have gone through the impugned order passed by District Forum dated 18.03.2016 in CC No.27/2015 and gone through the citations relied on by the Appellant and Respondent.

7. Now to examine whether in exercise of power of section of this Commission would interfere with the impugned order for the grounds of Appeal set out in the Appeal Memo.

8. The short question herein in this Appeal would be whether complainant on facts is entitled for refund of fee deposited by him under Management Quota for the reasons that in the 4th round he was allotted a seat under Government Quota. In this regard, having been examined the impu