AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant secured 54th rank (sic) in EAMCET, 1998 Entrance test and applied in the opposite party''s college for admission into 1st year B. Tech. Course. THE complainant submits that she attended an interview and thereafter was admitted into the college for the academic year 1998-99 and was told that it was a payment seat as per her rank in the EAMCET Entrance. She submits that she paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as donation and Rs. 1,40,000/- towards four years course tuition fee, i.e., Rs. 35,000/- per year. She was accommodated in the opposite parties college hostel as a boarder and also appeared for the unit tests conducted by opposite party. THE complainant further submits that she was not allowed to appear for the 1st year B. Tech Annual Examination by the opposite party on the grounds that she has not secured 60 per cent marks in her intermediate course and as such she is not eligible for NRI quota. THE complainant''s case is that she was kept in the dark by the opposite parties and that she was allotted her seat in the NRI quota and that the opposite parties without following proper norms and guidelines laid down by the Board of Technical Education EAMCET has taken huge donations and cheated the public. It is only due to deficiency of service of the opposite parties that she has lost two years of academic career and was subjected to severe mental agony and hardship for which she demanded the opposite parties to refund Rs. 2,40,000/-. THE opposite party has paid Rs. 60,000/-. THE complainant also submits that the opposite party has not made any representation to the concerned departments to ratify the admissions of the said students whereas the same was done by other colleges. THE Government as per G.O. Rt. No. 1078 dated 11.10.1999 ratified the admissions of the students of other colleges.
THE complainant states that it is only the negligence and deficient attitude of the opposite parties that led to her loss of two years of academic career and, therefore, she approached the Forum seeking direction to opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,80,000/- towards donation and 4 years course fee, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards interest at 24 per center per annum, Rs. 4,15,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards loss of two years and Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses totalling Rs. 12,00,000/-. The opposite party filed counter affidavit denying that the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- towards donation and Rs. 1,40,000/- towards tuition fee but admit that the complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- vide receipt No. 381 dated 9.12.1998 towards tuition fee under NRI quota as per the norms of the Government. The opposite parties also submit that the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 2,630/- towards admission fee, exam fee, caution deposit etc. The opposite parties submit that they are not concerned with the complainant''s accommodation in the hostel. The opposite party contend that the complainant was informed at the time of admission itself that she should secure 60 per cent of marks in Intermediate to secure admission under NRI quota and that the complainant stated that she would approach the High Court and get favourable orders as was done by some students in the previous years. The opposite parties also contend that the complainant approached the High Court by filing W.P. No. 19615/1999 which was dismissed on 20.9.1999 and thereafter the complainant approached them for refund of fees which the opposite party has refunded an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The opposite party submit that the complainant did not given them an opportunity to approach the Government for converting her seat to payment quota and, therefore, they are not at all responsible for the loss of two years of academic career and did not commit any act of deficiency of service and further contend that they have lost one seat for a four year course sustaining loss of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Therefore, they seek direction to dismiss the complaint with costs.
The complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence and Exhibits A1 to A9 have been marked on her behalf. Exhibits B1 to B4 have been marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
THE point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties and if the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint? The complainant filed a detailed affidavit and also written arguments in which she states that she paid Rs. 1,00,000/- towards donation and Rs. 1,40,000/- towards course fee for four years at Rs. 35,000/- per year as it was a payment seat in the opposite parties college for securing admission in B. Tech. course. Thereafter to her shock she was not allowed by the opposite parties to appear for her 1st year B. Tech. Annual Examination stating that she secured less than 60 per cent marks in her intermediate course and, therefore, was not eligible for NRI quota, since the opposite party admitted the students without following the norms and guidelines laid down by Board of Technical Education. The complainant was put to a lot of mental agony and hardship and she lost two valuable years academically. The opposite party has not initiated any action to ratify the admissions whereas students of other colleges initiated some action and could benefit from the G.O. issued by the Government dated 11.10.1999. The complainant denies the allegations made by the opposite parties in their counter that she paid only Rs. 2,630/- and that she was informed by the opposite party at the time of admission itself about the rules of securing admission under NRI quota and that she would approach the High Court and get favorable orders. The complainant also states in her affidavit that the opposite parties have admitted in their counter affidavit that they have lost one seat for a fours year course and thereby sustained a loss of tuition fees of Rs. 2,40,000/-.
EXHIBIT A-1 is the original EAMCET Entrance 1998 Rank Card. Exs. A2 to A4 are original Hostel fee receipts. Exs. A5 and A6 are the first year 1st Mid-term and second Mid-term memos respectively. Ex. A7 is the xerox copy of the Order No. 1078. Ex. A8 is the office copy of representation of the consumer to the Secretary to Government of A.P. Ex. A9 is the photo copy of the D.D. for Rs. 60,000/-. Opposite parties filed Exs. B1 to B4. It is evident from the exhibits filed and the pleadings put forward that the opposite parties did not follow the guidelines and norms issued by Board of Technical Education and collected fees from students without communicating to them the rule position. It is clear from their own admissions in their counter affidavit that they lost one seat for a four years course amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/-. Admitting students knowing fully well that they do not adhere to the rule positions is an act of unfair trade practice and also deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties for whose actions the complainant suffered loss of an academic year. It has not been explained as to why the complainant was given admission the the first place and then allowed to write first mid-term and second mid-term exams too, when she secured less than 60 per cent marks in the intermediate examination and did not confirm to admission rules itself. The facts, therefore, establish clearly that there was unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the private college authorities towards the students who were deliberately admitted to the course in violation of the law and the regulations. The complainant before us asked for a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- as monetary loss because of mental agony and hardship suffered due to loss of academic career. The compensation claimed is, on the face of it, excessive. There are no receipts filed by the complainant herein for the amounts claimed under donation and four years'' course. The admitted amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Ex. B1) has already been paid to the complainant by the opposite party. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and expedient to award a refund of Rs. 2,630/- (Ex. B2) and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally together with costs of Rs. 5,000/- within two months from today failing which opposite parties 1 and 2 shall pay an interest of 9 per cent per annum on the said amount. Opposite party No. 3 is only the principal and employee of the college and we are of the view that in the instant case he is not liable and, therefore, the case against O.P. No. 3 to be dismissed.
IN the result, this complaint is partly allowed directing opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 2,630/- and also pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant together with costs of Rs. 5,000/- within two months from today, failing which the decreed amount shall carry an interest of 9 per cent per annum. Case against opposite party No. 3 is dismissed without costs. Complaint partly allowed.