P.SOUMYA Vs. JYOTHISHMATHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
LAWS(APCDRC)-2004-2-1
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 20,2004

P.Soumya Appellant
VERSUS
JYOTHISHMATHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.SHREESHA,MEMBER - (1.) 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 partys 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 complainants 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.
(2.) 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/ -.
(3.) 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 complainants 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.;


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