SOLAPUR EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. DEEPALI SHAMRAO CHAVAN
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2008-6-2
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 13,2008

SOLAPUR EDUCATION SOCIETY Appellant
VERSUS
DEEPALI SHAMRAO CHAVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) JUDICIAL Member -This appeal is directed by the original O.Ps. against the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No. 150/2006 decided on 17.1.2007, whereby O.Ps. have been directed to refund tuition fee of Rs. 19,000, refund amount of Rs. 1,100 spent towards college dress and pay Rs. 5,000 for the expenses incurred for stay and to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for one year lost by the complainant. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
(2.) COMPLAINANT had passed S.S.C. examination by obtaining 68.40% marks. She also passed H.S.C. examination by obtaining 67.70% marks. She was to get admission in Government Technical Institute at Solapur. In the meantime she had also applied for admission in O.P. No. 1's S.E.S. Institute at Solapur (O.P. No. 2). She had applied for admission in first year course of Information Technology, but since O.Ps. found that complainant had obtained First Class in Information Technology, they suggested her to take admission in Second Year course of Information Technology Diploma directly. She had deposited Tuition Fees of Rs. 19,000 with O.Ps. She was required to stay at Solapur spending Rs. 6,360 for 6 months. She had incurred expenses of Rs. 1,100 for purchase of college dress. She had joined private tuition class for mathematics and spent Rs. 3,700 for that tuition class. In the first unit test of first session she got good percentage of marks, but one day, O.P. No. 2 told her that she would not be permitted to appear for Board examination, however, she could come and attend the college. Complainant was greatly shocked. In the Diwali vacation she had gone to her native place. She told this fact to her parents. Father of the complainant contacted O.Ps. and asked why she could not be allowed to sit in the college.
(3.) ON 7.1.2006, O.Ps. informed complainant's father that her admission in the second year Information Technology Diploma had been cancelled, because she could not get eligibility certificate from Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education and, therefore, they could not do anything in this regard. According to complainant, because of mess created by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, she lost one academic year permanently. She had been put to lot of inconvenience, mental stress and her expenses were ruined. She had applied for first year course with O.P.'s Institute, but instead of giving admission in first year course, they gave her admission directly in second year course without bothering to know that she had not passed H.S.C. with Mathematics as a subject and eligibility for direct admission to second year Information Technology Diploma required that student should have passed mathematics invariably. Since she was not having mathematics subject, eligibility was refused. So it was deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. They did not give her admission in First Year course and thereby, her whole academic year was lost and thousands of rupees spent during that one year had gone to drains. Hence she filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and claimed damages of Rs. 5 lakh from the O.Ps. She also claimed refund of various expenses, she incurred for attending second year course at the college by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied their liability. According to O.Ps. she was admitted in their college for the second year Information Technology Diploma on provisional basis. She would have been given final admission only after Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education Pune issued eligibility certificate. According to O.Ps., complainant had withheld from them the fact that she had not passed H.S.C. with mathematics as subject. They were not knowing that she had already applied for admission for Government Technical Institute at Solapur. According to them only because eligibility was refused by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, her admission was cancelled by sending letter dated 23.9.2005. They denied that they had for the first time informed complainant by letter dated 7.1.2006 that admission of complainant was cancelled owing to non -receipt of eligibility from the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education. They, therefore, pleaded that they cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service and they pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.