SRIRAM CHANDRAN vs R.D.PENNATHUR

THIS complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE complainant applied for admission to the P.C. Dental College, K.K. Halli, Banglore and approached the Principal. THE Principal demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- as capitation fee and Rs. 50,000/- as tution fee for every academic year. Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. three lakhs fifty thousand only) was paid on 8.12.1993 through the undo of the complainant, Sri P. Gopalakrishnan. THE amount was collected by the Accounts Officer of the College Mr. Rafi in the presence of the complainant. At that time another uncle of the complainant Dr. K.R. Baburaj was also present. No receipt was issued for Rs. 3,00,000/- but a receipt for Rs. 50,000/- was issued which the complainant is said to have lost. Later the balance of tution fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- was demanded which also was paid on 23.2.1994 by a demand draft of the State Bank of India, Panayappilly Branch, Cochin-2. THE receipt for this was issued by the General Manager of the College. Thus the fee for the whole course for the year 1993-97 covering 4 years was paid by the complainant. Complainant was admitted to the college on 9.12.1993 and attended the course till November, 1994, residing in the hostel. THEre was a strike of senior students in the month of February, 1994 alleging that there was enrolment of students in excess of the ceiling limit. THE students also submitted a mass petition to the higher authorities against irregularities committed by the Principal and the College. This led to the closure of the College. THE complainant had to discontinue his studies. A letter dated 13.7.1994 was received by the complainant''s father from the college that classes are commencing from the 15th July, 1994 and the college is trying to sort out the matter with the help of the Health Minister of Government of India. Alleging deficiency of service the above complaint was filed claiming refund of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest and adequate compensation for the loss of two academic years and for mental agony and frustration. We issued notice to the Principal, R.D. Pennathur which was returned unserved. Hence substituted service through publication in Indian Express Daily, Bangalore edition dated 9.6.1997 was taken notifying that the case is posted for hearing on 26.6.1997. On that date when the case was called out the opposite party was absent. There was no representation on his behalf. Hence the complainant was directed to file affidavit and documents. The affidavit was filed on 27.6.1997 along with the documents. The affidavit was sworn to by Dr. K.R. Jayachandran, father of the complainant who is holding a Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant to prosecute the complaint. The Power of Attorney is marked as Ex. P1. The affidavit is in terms of the complaint. The receipt dated 23.2.1994 for Rs. 1,50,000/- produced and marked as Ex. P2. The ''no due'' certificate issued by the Principal dated 23.2.1994 in favour of the complainant is marked as Ex. P3. the communication from the Principal to the father of the complainant dated 13.7.1994 to start attending classes regularly informing that the problem of permitting students to take up examination of 1993-94 will be sorted out with the interaction of the Honourable Health Minister, Government of India etc. is marked as Ex. P4. The paper publication (substituted service) in Indian Express dated 9.6.1997is marked as Ex. P5. The case was adjourned to 1.8.1997. Even on that day there was no representation for the opposite party.

The complainant''s case stands proved by the affidavit and Exs. P2 to P4. In the absence of any contra evidence we accept the affidavit evidence on behalf of the complainant. Moreover Ex. P3 clearly proves that the complainant has paid the entire tution fee for the whole course. It may also be noted that Ex. P3 ''no due certificate'' is signed by the Principal himself. Even though tution fee was paid in full the complainant was able to attend the course for one year only. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to that extent namely retaining tution fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- without imparting any education to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get a refund of the said amount. With regard to payment of Rs. 3 lakhs by way of capitation fee no evidence has been adduced. Mere assertion of the payment by the complainant cannot be acted upon. There must be some evidence to corroborate the statement. In the absence of any other evidence we cannot direct the opposite party to refund the said amount. Coming to compensation we note that the grievance of the complainant is that he lost two valuable years for which the opposite party is liable. Even though Ex. P4 was sent by the Principal to the complainant''s father intimating about the revival of regular classes, no response was made by the complainant on this aspect. It seems that he did not co-operate with the opposite party and ultimately he filed this complaint. Though he alleges that he lost valuable years, he did nothing to mitigate the loss by attending classes regularly in pursuance to Ex. P4. We are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

IN the circumstances, we direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of payment on 23.2.1994. The complaint is allowed to the above extent. Complaint allowed. ___________________