SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K.S.Chaudhari, B.C.Gupta
FIITJEE Limited – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Jain – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Manu Yadav, Advocate Proxy.
For the Respondent (s):Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

B.C. Gupta, Member—Appeared on 10.04.2013 at the time of arguments, This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 117 of 2012, vide which the appeal against order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Sameer Jain, son of the complainant/respondent Anil Kumar Jain took admission in the Gurgaon Study Centre of the petitioner, which is an institute for running coaching classes for students for various entrance examinations and it is Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The admission was taken in a Course namely CRP-2 year with Registration No. CTYSDSD2201060021, enrolment No. CTYGR0680052 (C-6) and paid a fee of Rs. 68,930/- vide Receipt No. SD05-06-4350 dated 14.02.2006. It has been stated that in the month of April, 2006, the petitioner/opposite party informed the son of the complainant to j








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top