Annapurna Medical Training Institute Jaipur Road, Sikar vs JITENDRA SINGH

IN the year 2009 -10 the complainant/respondent took admission in B.Sc. Nursing Course with the petitioner institute and deposited a sum of Rs.65,000/ - towards fee for the first year. In Feb.2010 he was required to deposit fee for the second academic year which he duly deposited. He appeared in the first year examination held in April 2010. The results of the aforesaid first year examination were declared in September, 2010 and the complainant was shown having failed in as many as four papers. However, in the meanwhile the classes for the second year had also commenced before the result for the first year examination was declared. The complainant attended the second year classes, till the result of the first year examination was declared in September, 2010. Since the complainant failed in the first year examination, he could not continue attending the second year classes. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter the complainant attended the first year classes, in the year 2010 -11 whereas the case of the complainant is that he did not attend any first year class in the year 2010 -11. The complainant appeared in the first year examination in April 2011 but again failed. He thereafter left the petitioner institute. He demanded refund of the second year fee amounting to Rs.65,000/ -. The said amount having not been refunded to him he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner institute on the ground that the seat in the second year, which became vacant on account of the petitioner/complainant having failed in the first year examination and consequently having not been allowed to attend the second year classes, remained vacant thereafter and, therefore, not only they were justified in retaining the fee of the second year, they were also entitled to the fee of the third year and fourth year, since the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant even for the next two academic years as well.

VIDE its order dated 21 -06 -2012 the concerned District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/ - to the complainant along with caution money of Rs.10,000/ -, compensation amounting to Rs.3,000/ - and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000/ -. The petitioner was also directed to return the original documents of the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner institute approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 04 -12 -2014 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner institute. Being aggrieved the said institute is before us by way of this revision petition.

IT is not in dispute that the second year classes in the academic year 2010 -11 had started in July -August 2010. It is not in dispute that the second year classes were attended by the complainant till the time result of the first year examination held in April 2010 was declared. Since the complainant had failed in the aforesaid examination, the petitioner institute could not possibly have allowed him to continue to attend the second year classes. Therefore, the said institute rightly asked the complainant to stop attending the second year classes after his result for the first year examination was declared. The complainant, thus, was unable to attend the remaining classes of second year, solely on account of his having failed in the first year examination and not on account of any deficiency on the part of the petitioner institute.

THE complainant had taken admission in a four year course. Therefore, he could not have been allowed to attend the second year classes without charging the fee for the second year. Therefore, the petitioner institute was justified in collecting the said fee from him in Feb.2010. Since the complainant was unable to attend the second year classes solely on account of his own shortcomings, he having failed in the first year examination, the petitioner institute cannot be blamed for his not being able to attend the remaining second year classes in the academic year 2010 -11. There is absolutely no case of deficiency in the services rendered by the petitioner institute to the complainant.

SINCE a private institute such as the petitioner before us arranges infrastructure and employees, teachers and other staff members, on the assumption that it will be admitting a particular number of students in a given year, it will be put to a financial loss in case it has to refund the fee taken from a student who is unable to attend the classes and continue the studies on account of his poor academic performance, unless the institute is able to fill up the seat which is vacated by the student who is unable to pursue the study on account of his having failed in the examination. There is nothing on record to show that the seat which got vacated on account of the complainant having failed in the first year examination was actually filled up by the petitioner institute in the academic year 2010 -11. Hence, a direction to the said institute to refund the amount received from the complainant as tuition fee/course fee, would cause undue financial hardship to the institute without the said institute being in any manner responsible for the student not being able to pursue his studies. Therefore, the direction given by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission cannot be sustained as far as the refund of the course fee is concerned.

AS regards caution fee the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the institute would be refunding the said amount to the complainant within four weeks from today. As regards original certificates of the complainant the learned counsel undertakes that if the said certificates were deposited with the petitioner institute the same shall be returned to the complainant within four weeks from today. The learned counsel states that the complainant can collect the said certificates from the college after four weeks from today.

IN view of the foregoing the direction given by the District Forum for refund of Rs.65,000/ -, compensation and cost of litigation is hereby set aside and the complaint is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to refund only the caution money of Rs.10,000/ - and return the original documents if any of the complainant to him within four weeks from today. The amount which the petitioner had deposited with the District Forum shall be refunded to the petitioner along with interest which may have accrued on that amount after the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in this order.