Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALURU
Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh (President), *K. B. Sangannanavar (Judicial Member), Divyashree M. (Member)
P. M. N. M. Dental College v. Saikarsh Rao
1. This is an Appeal filed under S.15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved by the Order dated 18.3.2016 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 S.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 litiga
An educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year and may require a bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees if a student may leave in midstream.
Educational institutions are not considered 'providers of service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus are not liable for fee refunds.
Forfeiture of entire fees paid by student on withdrawal from course within a fortnight of joining is unjustified but amounts to unjust enrichment.
The mandatory conditions for refund can be read down to be directory in nature, especially when the student subsequently indicates allotment in the second counselling and reasons for forsaking the al....
The Court emphasized that minimal deficiencies should not negate renewals for educational institutions, ensuring student admissions are preserved in public interest.
The court established that delays in seeking relief under Article 226 do not bar claims when fundamental rights are violated, especially in cases involving mistakes or fraud.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article