Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.172/2008
Date of Institution 7-7-2008
Date of Decision 30-4-2009
Davinder Kumar son of Sh. Bhag Singh resident of village and Post Office Troh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
…Complainant
V/S
1. Sh.Chander Shekhar Sharma , Director Sachdeva New P.T. College Sachdeva College Complex Paddla, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
2. Sh.Ghanshyam Dass Principal cum co-coordinator Sachdeva New P.T. College Sachdeva College Complex Paddle Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
…..Opposite parties
For the complainant Sh. Bhupinder Sharma ,Advocate
For the opposite parties Sh. Mahesh Chopra, Advocate
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties .The case of the complainant is that he was admitted to the Course of M Phil, Biotechnology in the Study Centre by the opposite party No.2 himself and on behalf of the opposite party No.1 for the Session 2007-2008 after taking total fee / consideration of Rs.15,000/- in cash vide receipt No.518 dated 16-1-2007/2008. The complainant took admission in the study centre of the opposite parties on their counselling and assurance of certainty of affiliation ,course ,admission and examination etc with Vinayaka Mission University Salem for the Session 2007-2008 as per original receipt No.578. The complainant had alleged that the opposite parties did not provide any assistance in studies as classes etc at the Study Centre except books in the name of the study material in the middle of March 2008 for the term end examination in June 2008. The opposite parties did not arrange for any PCP or Seminar etc to discharge their duty for the name of their study centre despite taking full payment at the time of the admission whereas the complainant has been visiting and requesting the opposite parties to do the needful but in vain. The complainant has further alleged that in the month of May 2008 the opposite parties sought examination fee to the tune of Rs.4600/- which was paid to them in the shape of draft dated 8-5-2008 of Punjab National Bank Nerchowk . The opposite party No.2 asked him to come on 2nd June 2008 for collecting roll number whereupon the complainant kept on preparing at his own level for ensuing examination . It is alleged that when the complainant went to the opposite party No.2 on 2-6-2008 for taking his roll number for the term end examinations , the opposite party No.2 asked him to come after 15 days as the exams have been postponed for 20th June 2008 onwards but to the dismay of the complainant , the opposite party No.2 on 18-6-2008 told that the roll number had not been received by their office / college and asked him to prepare for the next Session without assigning any reason. The opposite party No.1 was also contacted but of no avail . On sensing foul play the complainant inquired about the opposite parties at the Website of the University and searched about his admission etc for the session 2007-2008 but strangely he could found none in the subject of biotechnology through the study centre of the opposite parties It has been alleged that the opposite parties deliberately and intentionally allured , assured and promised admission of complainant in M. Phil in Biotechnology subject by taking hefty consideration of the services rendered which act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in services.. On these allegations, the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,000/- deposited with the opposite parties on account of fees , to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of loss of one academic session , to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
2 The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing joint reply. It has been stated that the complainant had qualified himself for enrolment and registration in M. Phil in May 2007 as he has passed his 4th Semester in May 2007 in MSc ( Biotechnology ). For enrolment and registration in M Phil , the complainant had approached the Study Centre of the opposite parties in January 2008 as the Session of 2007 was already closed in January 2007 and he had paid the enrolment / registration charges vide receipt No.518 dated 16-1-2008 but due to inadvertence and over sight instead of year 2008, 07 had been written on the said receipt . The complainant had been enrolled for the year 2008 for M Phil Biotech for the session of 2008-09 and not 2007-08. That after the registration , the complainant is being provided proper coaching and guidance for annual M Phil examination of university to be held in December 2008 or onwards for which the dates are yet to be notified by the university. It has been stated that no examination of M Phil was held in June since the duration of the said course is one year which starts from January to December every year. It has also been stated that the opposite parties have only directed the complainant to arrange for the deposit of examination fee of Rs.4600/- to deposit the same in the name of the university. It has been denied that the complainant had handed over any draft of PNB Nerchowk for Rs.4600/- pertaining to admission fee . Neither any fraud was committed by the opposite parties in the enrolment / registration of the complainant nor on any other aspect . The opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint .
3 The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting the averments made in the reply by the opposite parties .
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire record. The case of the complainant is that he took admission in the study Centre of the opposite parties for the session 2007-2008 after depositing fee/ consideration of Rs.15,000/- in cash vide receipt No.518 dated 16-1-2007/08. Further case of the complainant is that he had also deposited Rs.4600/- as examination fee in the shape of draft and handed over the same to the opposite party No.2 but despite that the opposite parties did not issue him the roll number for the examination of session 2007-08 and he was asked by the opposite parties to prepare for the next session without assigning any reason and as a result of which he had lost one academic year . On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant was never enrolled for session of 2007-08 as Session of 2007-08 was already closed in January 2007. The complainant had paid enrolment / registration charges vide receipt No.518 dated 16-1-2008 but due to inadvertence and over sight instead of year 2008, year 2007 had been writtenon the receipt. Further version of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not qualified himself for his enrolment/ registration in M. Phil Biotech in January 2007 and had qualified for such registration after May 2007 and the complainant had been enrolled for the Session of 2008-2009. In the rejoinder , it had not been denied by the complainant that receipt No.518 was issued on 16-1-2008 and not on 16-1-2007. The perusal of the certificate M.Sc.4th semester Annexure R-8 shows that the complainant had qualified M Sc. examination of Semester -4 in the month of May 2007. Therefore ,in our opinion the opposite parties are right in stating that the complainant was not eligible for admission in the course of M Phil Biotech in January 2007 as the complainant had qualified M.Sc examination in the month of May 2007. The complainant had failed to explain as to how he could be granted admission in the month of January 2007 for session 2007-08 once he was not eligible for taking admission in M Phil as he passed his M Sc. 4th Semester in May 2007. The opposite parties have also placed on record photocopy of identity card issued to the complainant Annexure R-1 wherein the complainant had been enrolled for M. Phil Biotech for the batch of January 2008. It was incumbent upon the complainant to establish that the opposite parties have granted admission to him for the session of 2007-08 but no material has been placed on record by the complainant to show that he was granted admission by the opposite parties for session 2007-08. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence , it cannot be said that the complainant was granted admission for the session 2007-08 and also it cannot be said that one academic year of the complainant had been lost due to the act of the opposite parties . Hence in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence on record , it cannot be said that the opposite parties had been deficient in providing service to the complainant.
5 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
6 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
7 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced
30-4-2009 (Sushil Kukreja ) President
*DKM* (Alknanda )( Lal Singh) Members