M.MANMADHA RAO Vs. ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the complainant in brief is that his son M. Roshan Kumar responded to the advertisement issued in the newspapers by the respondent calling for applications for admission to two -year PGDBA programme, 2002 wherein final year degree students could also apply. There was no mention that degree certificate was necessary to take admission into the said course. His son had informed that he did not complete his degree, and there were some backlog papers which he had to attend. The opposite party allowed his son to undergo the entire selection process and by letter dated 19.4.2002 he was directed to report at Pune by 1.6.2002 for taking the programme of PGDBA. It had collected Rs. 2,00,000 apart from refundable caution fee of Rs. 5,000 and Off Campus accommodation fee of Rs. 16,000. While so in April, 2003 he was informed that his son was debarred from attending the classes. However, the demand draft for Rs. 40,000 sent by him in July, 2003 was received. Later on 19.7.2003 he was informed that his son's admission was terminated mentioning that it had enclosed a letter dated 27.4.2003. The said letter was never communicated to him. Having received Rs. 2,40,000 it could not have cancelled his admission. Therefore, he prayed that an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 be refunded with interest @ 24% p.a., from 1.5.2003 besides Rs. 5,000 towards refundable caution deposit, Rs. 16,000 towards off campus accommodation deposit, Rs. 75,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards costs.

(2.) THE respondent institute resisted the case. While admitting issuance of advertisement even for those students who were appearing for the graduation examination, it alleged that in their prospectus it made it clear that the admission was provisional till the student produced the marks sheet and degree certificate establishing his eligibility. However, it admitted that complainant had paid Rs. 2 lakh, and Rs. 40,000 on 9.7.2003 under demand draft, and also Rs. 5,000 towards caution deposit, and Rs. 16,000 towards off campus accommodation. The last date for submission of proof of graduation was 1.11.2002. Under Clause 5.13 of student regulation under the heading cancellation of provisional admission, it was mentioned that permissible refund would be 75% of the tuition fee and caution deposit. An application for refund of amount was to be submitted on or before 1.11.2002.

(3.) LATER the deposits would be returned on completion of the course or as per the cancellation of provisional admission without interest. On 27.4.2003 itself it informed about the cancellation of admission of his son. An amount of Rs. 40,000 that was sent through demand draft was encashed in routine course. When it was found that registration was cancelled it was kept in a separate account. Since there was no request from the complainant the amount was not paid. The complainant was entitled to 75% of the tuition fee without interest and that too it would be refunded only on request. Though the time was extended till April, 2003 in order to enable the complainant's son to complete his graduation he could not do so. Taking advantage of typographical mistake in the letter dated 27.4.2003 the complainant filed the case. Since the complainant did not approach for refund of the amount as per the rules the said amount could not be refunded. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.