The court upheld the complainant's right to seek redress for the college's false claims and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order dated 20.12.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order of a District Forum dated 27.7.2001 whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to refund/pay amounts of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation besides cost, to respondent/complainant.

2. Facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Petitioner has been running a college at Khanna and he got an advertisement issued for admission in various courses including B.A. Pt. I & II. Respondent got his daughter-Ms. Bindu admitted in B.A. Course in Magadh University and paid amount of Rs. 16,000/- in instalments to the petitioner. Later on, the petitioner informed the respondent that due to strike of employees, the University had decided not to hold examination and passed resolution that all the candidates who got admission, will be declared as passed. Thereafter, the petitioner handed over certain certificates to the respondent. It is further alleged that respondent on becoming suspicious, having come across some rumours, sent a letter by registered post to Magadh University to ascertain about the genuineness of certificates issued. Although, letter was received by the University but no response was sent by it. Thereafter, on personally visiting the concerned officers of University, the respondent was told that no such certificates were ever issued by the University nor was there any strike in University. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner, a complaint was filed before District Forum which was disposed of on the terms indicated above.

3. Submission advanced by Mr. D.P. Tripathi for petitioner whom we have heard on admission, was that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to contest the claim by both the Fora below. Both the aforesaid orders dated 27.7.2001 and 20.12.2002 would show that after sending written version by post, the petitioner did not participate in proceedings and was proceeded ex parte; that by way of ex parte evidence the respondent filed his affidavit and documents and believing the affidavit and documents, the complaint was disposed of by the District Forum allowing the reliefs noticed above. Petitioner who choose not to contest the complaint, cannot complain that he was not given opportunity to defend. Both the Fora below have returned concurrent finding that petitioner charged fee and gave false certificates regarding passing of examination by the daughter of respondent. There is hardly any ground to interfere with that concurrent finding in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

Revision Petition dismissed.

–––