I. Venkatanarayana, President:
1. Opposite parties are the appellants.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur in C.D. No. 187/1999 dated 11.7.2003 the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder:
The complainant was a diploma holder and appeared for Engineering Common Admission Test for diploma holders during the year 1995-96 and obtained rank No. 301. He joined the college of the opposite party and studied for one year and during the first year of examination gave a letter dated 5.5.1997 to the second opposite party stating that he wanted to withdraw from the college and requested the opposite parties to return the original certificates which were submitted at the time of admission. The opposite parties asked the complainant to pay the fees for the remaining two years and promised that they would obtain a letter from the Competent Authorities permitting the complainant to join the opposite parties college at his convenience without further payment of any fees. Believing the version of the opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs. 30,000 by way of demand draft on 5.5.1997 drawn on S.B.I. in favour of the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the D.D. and promised to issue a regular receipt from the Competent Authority at a later stage and return the original certificate of the complainant. The opposite parties also withold the caution deposit of Rs. 520 stating that it will be paid to the complainant after two years. The complainant got issued a legal notice or 22.1.1999 claiming refund of Rs. 30,000 and also the caution deposit as there was no response, he approached the District Forum claiming appropriate relief.
4. First opposite party filed counter admitting the payment of Rs. 30,000 towards the fee for the remaining years. He also submitted that they are ready to issue a receipt for the amounts received. It is further submitted that the said sum of Rs. 30,000 was collected as per the norms and regulations of the institution and the complainant is not entitled for refund.
5. The District Forum based on the pleadings, Exs. A1 to A6 and the memo filed by the opposite parties, allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 30,000 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e., 17.6.1999 till the date of realization and further directed refund of Rs. 500 caution deposit and costs of Rs. 1,000.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. N. Sreerama Murthy appearing for the appellants submitted that the institution is entitled to collect fees from the student as per the rules when they were ready and willing to impart the education for the said period.
8. We have gone through the record. In the present case the respondent/complainant has chosen voluntarily to leave the education institution in the middle and if the students are allowed to take admission and leave the institution in the middle of the course, the said vacancy cannot be filled up by the institution and consequently the institution would be put to loss financially and as such the appellants are entitled to collect the entire fees for the course. It is to be noticed that the institution was ready and willing to impart education and the respondent/complainant has voluntarily chosen to leave the institution. The retionale for this view is that the education institution was ready and willing to impart education but it was the student who was responsible for not receiving the service by leaving the institution abruptly. This commission in a judgment reported in Pydah College, Vsakhapatnam v. E. Mohan Rao And Another, reported in III (1998) CPJ 339=1998 ALD (Cons.) 18 following the judgment of the National Commission held that where a student leaves voluntarily to join another institute, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the educational institution. The rationale for this is that the educational institution is willing and ready to impart education but it is the student who is responsible for not receiving the service by leaving the institution in the midst of the academic year.
9. This judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants for directing them to refund the fee already paid.
10. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum in C.D. No. 187/1999 dated 11.7.2003. No order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.