K. SIVA PRASAD vs CORRESPONDENT, SMT. Y. KRISHNA VENI RAO

THE unsuccessful complainant in O.P. No. 796/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nellore, is the appellant before this Commission. THE facts in brief are that the opposite parties are running a coaching centre for EAMCET Entrance Test at Nellore. THE complainant''s father joined the complainant in their coaching centre by paying Rs. 10,000/- on 5.8.1997 for medical entrance examination. THE complainant wrote to his father stating that no other student has been admitted, and no coaching is being given even after ten days, and that he is afraid of loneliness. THE opposite parties have published bogus prospectus. THE complainant''s father rushed to Nellore and demanded the opposite parties to refund Rs. 10,000/-, but they refused to do so. THE complainant left the opposite parties'' institution on 22.8.1997. Hence, the complainant claims refund of the money.

THE opposite parties filed their written version stating that their''s is a reputed institution running from the last 16 years, and that the complainant has voluntarily joined the institution, and its students achieved State ranks in Intermediate, and that the complainant''s father paid only Rs. 10,000/- towards advance agreeing to abide by the college rules. After admission the complainant attended classes daily, and he was supplied study material worth of Rs. 2,000/- along with other students and appeared for class tests also, but feeling home sick, he left the college after one month, and the complainant is, therefore, not liable to refund any amount. Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum held that the complainant has left the college voluntarily and, therefore, he is not entitled for the refund of the fees paid by him.

Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the complainant preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is, whether the order of the District Forum is justified in dismissing the complaint ? The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant joined the opposite parties'' institution for taking coaching for EAMCET examination. He joined on 5.8.1997 paid Rs. 10,000/- and left the college on 22.8.1997. While studying in the college he wrote to his father that no other student has joined the college. He claims refund of the money paid by him. The opposite parties alleged that their''s is a reputed institution running from the last 16 years and that the complainant attended the classes daily, and he was supplied with the study material worth Rs. 2,000/-, and that he has voluntarily left the college and, therefore, he is not entitled for the refund of the fees. As per Ex. B-2 several tests were held during the period when the complainant stayed in the college. Ex. A-2 is the prospectus of the coaching centre of the opposite parties. Ex. A-2 states that if the candidate wants to withdraw from the institute, withdrawal will be allowed within five days after the commencement of the coaching programme. In such case registration fee will be deducted and the balance will be refunded to the parent/guardian. If the candidate wants to withdraw, they can do so but no amount will be refunded under any circumstances. The complainant has stayed in the college for more than 15 days. He is bound by Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations, and he has voluntarily left the college.

THE National Commission in Shri Ramadeobaba Engg. College v . Sushrant Yuvaraj Rode, III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC)=1986-95 Consumer 1364, held that once the complainant withdraws from the college voluntarily, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the college in non-refund of the admission fee. Similarly in Secretary, Pala Municipality (Principal) I.T.C. v. Biju Joseph, 1996 (2) CPR 228, the National Commission held that when once the complainant had withdrawn voluntarily after study of two months and the management could not admit any new student for the course in his place and according to the terms and conditions of the prospectus and agreement, the student is obliged to pay for the second year also. In these circumstances, it was held that for payment of tuition fee for the entire course as a condition for issuing transfer certificate does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

THE law laid down in the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the District Forum has rightly held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and dismissed the complaint. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal in liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly without costs. Appeal dismissed.