M RAVINDRANATH Vs. PRINCIPAL MERCY COLLEGE PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises from the following facts : The petitioner in this revision petition was a complainant before the District Forum. He filed a complaint against the Principal, Mercy College. The allegations were that the petitioner, Ms. Deepa Ravi had applied to the Mercy College i.e. the opposite party for admission in B.Sc. course i.e. Mathematics as her first preference. She was called for interview on 10.8.1992 as Chance Card No. 8. But, on that day, the Principal of the opposite party informed the complainants that seats in Mathematics main has been filled up as admission up to Chance Card No. 7 had been given. The Principal assured the complainant and her father that her chance stood as No. 1 in the Mathematics main course, but offered her admission in Chemistry main which was her second choice. The Principal of the College assured her and her father that she would be given the first seat in Mathematics if any vacancy occurred or there was increase in the seats. Keeping in mind the assurance given by the Principal, the complainant got herself admitted in Chemistry course. It was the case of the complainants that opposite party had provided seats on 10.8.1992 to 4 or 5 students in Mathematics main superseeding the merit list in which complainant daughter stood first. The father of Deepa Ravi met the Principal and requested for a seat for his daughter in Mathematics but the opposite party refused to accede to his request. So, the first complainant was compelled to withdraw his daughter, Ms. Deepa Ravi from the opposite party College and got her admitted in the N.S.S. College, Ottapalam in Mathematics main course. The case set up by the complainant was that Ms. Deepa Ravi was overlooked for admission and other students were admitted without considering the case of the complainant. As a result, the first complainant had to incur huge amounts for the journey of his daughter to Ottapalam for her studies. It was also the case of the complainant that she had paid at the time of admission in Chemistry the entire fee but they had refunded only some amounts retaining Rs. 250/- with them. Thus, the complainant claimed for refund of Rs. 250/- and also compensation.

(2.) The opposite party contended that the complainant was not a consumer and the dispute was beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Deepa Ravi joined the Chemistry group and she did not make any inquiry later for the Mathematics group. So, the opposite party thought that she was satisfied with the Chemistry group. Owing to the pressure of necessity, the Management applied for marginal increase of 10 seats in the Mathematics group to the University. In anticipation of sanction, some students were admitted under the Management quota. The complainant was also offered a seat but she did not join. In spite of offering a seat in Mathematics the first complainant applied for transfer certificate and admitted his daughter at Ottapalam N.S.S. College.

(3.) After considering the material placed on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and awarded Rs. 18,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs. 250/-. It was observed by the District Forum that the College had admitted 9 students in open merit out of 24 seats and the sequence was not as per the list. The students admitted in Mathematics group were below the rank of Ms. Deepa Ravi. As per the list filed by the college, disparity was seen in admitting the students. The rules pertaining to the admission were not followed by the College. The College admitted some other students in the next vacancy though Ms. Deepa Ravi was kept in waiting list in Mathematics group. The College did not intimate Ms. Deepa Ravi about the admission and also did not offer her seat in Mathematics which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the College. As the College did not impart education to her, the complainant was entitled to get the refund of entire fee. The complainant had also suffered financial loss due to negligence of the opposite party and the amount was quantified at the rate of 500/- per month for a period of 3 years.