2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 28340
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
The Administrative Officer SSN Institutions – Appellant
Versus
M.Ajay Vigneshwar – Respondent
SC/33/A/59/2016
IN THETAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.
BEFORE Hon’bleThiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL MEMBER F. A. No.59/2016 (Against the Order dt.17.02.2016 made in C.C. No.372/2013 on the file of D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South))
DATED THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
1. The Administrative Officer, SSN Institutions, T.V. Loganathan Towers, No.211/95, V.M. Street, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Principal, Sri Sivasubramania Nadar College of Engineering, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Tiruporur – 603 110.
Kancheepuram District. .. Appellants / Opposite parties.
-Versus-
M. Ajay Vigneshwar, C/o. Dr. S. Mahalingam, No.1, Bakthavachalam Street, Ring Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107. .. Respondent/ Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party : M/s. K. Parthasarathy Respondent/ Complainant : Mr. S. Mahalingam (Authorised Agent)
This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 29.07.2022 and there was no representation for both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL, MEMBER
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / opposite parties herein under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) made in C.C. No.372/2013, dated 17.02.2016 in partly allowing the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the amount of Rs.49,175/- along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization and Rs.5,000/- as cost to the complainant.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Chennai (South).
3. The factual background giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-
The complainant submitted that the complainant Ajai Vigneshwar has joined B.Tech 4 years course in the opposite parties college of SSN College of Engineering and has completed 1st year course and also attended the classes for the 2nd year course for about one month and discontinued the said course on 31.07.2013 for the purpose of joining the same Course at National Institute of Technology, Trichy. After receiving necessary Transfer Certificate dt.31.07.2013 on paying tuition fees of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.59,750/- towards fees for various special facilities including transport, hostel rent, books, record books, lab fee and refundable caution deposit and also has paid Rs.7,000/- for additional room rent totalling a sum of Rs.1,06,750/-.
But subsequently, the complainant has discontinued the course of study from the opposite parties college to join the other college. The complainant has attended hardly about one month period in the opposite parties college in the 2nd year course as such the said amount was paid on compulsion in order to get the certificates from the opposite parties to produce the same in the other college in which, the complainant joined subsequently. The opposite parties are liable to refund the entire amount to the complainant but despite of demand made by the complainant to the opposite parties, only a sum of Rs.4,200/- was refunded by the opposite parties and was refused to pay the balance amount. This act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant, had sought for refund of a sum of Rs.1,02,550/- as balance of fees and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant.
4. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing version. The opposite parties submit that since the complainant discontinued the course during the 2nd year of the study the said seat was kept vacant and the same cannot be filled up for the subsequent period of entire course i.e. for another 3 years. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the complainant for ask