IMPORTANT POINT
Opposite party cannot be held liable only because interviews were conducted in its premises.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 27.8.2014 passed by State Commission in FA No. 171 of 2014- Director, Bhiwani Institute of Technology & Sciences VS. Bhupesh Kharab & Anr., by which while allowing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint against appellant was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was a student of B.Tech. at the Institute of opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 /respondent No. 2 had taken interview of the complainant for placement in the campus of opposite party No. 2 and selected him. Opposite party No. 1 demanded Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant as refundable security which was deposited by him. When complainant visited opposite party No. 1’s office for training, he found that company was locked and came to know that company failed to pay salary to its employees. Complainant lodged FIR against opposite party No. 1. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party(s), complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party No. 1 was proceeded exparte. Opposite party No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant and opposite party No. 1 entered into an agreement for employment and nothing has been pleaded against opposite party No. 2 in the complaint. It was, further, submitted that complainant never approached opposite party No. 2 for refund of security amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite party to refund Rs. 80,000/- with interest and further allowed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,200/- as litigation charges. Opposite party No. 2 filed appeal before the State Commission and Learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed complaint against opposite party No. 2 against which this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard father of the petitioner/Auth. Rep. at admission stage and perused record.

4. Auth. Representative of petitioner submitted that as interviews were conducted in opposite party No. 2’s complex, District Forum rightly allowed complaint against opposite party No. 2 and Learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal, hence, revision petition be admitted.

5. Perusal of record reveals that opposite party No. 1 conducted interviews for placement in opposite party No. 2’s campus where complainant was studying. Opposite party No. 1 selected complainant, provided appointment letter subject to depositing refundable security and complainant deposited security amount with opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 had no role in appointment and deposit of security amount. No deficiency has been pleaded against opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 cannot be held liable only because interviews were conducted in its premises. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against opposite party No. 2 and Learned State Commission rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint against opposite party No. 2.

6. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.

**********