Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Pritam Pal, President and Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
SHASHI - Appellant
Versus
SURENDER KUMAR - Respondent
R.B.T. Nos. 1537, 1539, 1540 of 2008
Decided on : 02-07-2009
Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for the Appellant; Authorized Represented., for the Respondent
The main legal point established is the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in addressing unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by the institute.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Unfair Trade Practice - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 12, Section 14(1)(d) - The court discussed the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the appellant, highlighting the legal provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and their interpretations that influenced the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant enrolled in a computer course at an institute and later found out that the institute's recognition had been withdrawn. The complainant sought a refund and compensation, which the institute failed to provide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the institute guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, upholding the orders for refund and compensation.
Issues: Recognition of the institute, absence of diploma or degree, service of notice on the appellant, and the complainants' absence from classes and failure in tests were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was served notice and had the opportunity to present her case. It also found the appellant guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service due to the absence of conclusive proof of institute recognition and the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's contentions.
Final Decision: All three appeals were dismissed, upholding the orders for refund and compensation, and the parties were left to bear their own costs of litigation.
ORDER
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member - Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of three appeals received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 29.7.2002 passed in respective complaint case No. 398 of 2001 : Sh. Surender Kumar v. Smt. Shashi; complaint case No. 401 of 2001 : Sh. Avtar Singh v. Smt. Shashi and complaint case No. 399 of 2001 : Sh. Sanjay Kumar v. Smt. Shashi. For the just decision of these three appeals which have similar facts involving same law points, facts are being extracted from complaint case filed by Sh. Surender Kumar i.e. complaint case No. 398 of 2001 as under:
2. In short, the case of the complainant is that in August 2000, the complainant took admission with the Computer Centre run by the OP in Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Science and Technology and deposited a fee amounting to Rs. 5,952. The complainant had been assured that the institute was a recognized institute but later on the complainant came to know that the Central Government had declared that the recognition given to E.T. and T had been withdrawn. The complainant contacted the OP in this regard and she told the complainant that the recognition was taken from the Ministry of Information and Technology. The complainant's case, however, is that this was not true. The complainant, therefore, requested the OP to refund the amount deposited along with interest or to grant diploma recognized from the Deemed University but there was no response from the OP, therefore, the complainant had filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs. 5,952 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization along with another sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation and damages.
3. The OP did not appear despite service and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte vide District Forum's order dated 15.10.2001.
4. The learned District Forum in the impugned order held the view that the documents placed on file establish that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,952 with the OP and further the documents placed on record revealed that the OP has neither given the diploma nor refunded the amount of fee to the complainant. Thus, the learned District Forum held the view that the OP had indulged in unfair trade practice and was also deficient in providing service to the complainant and consequently, it directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 5,952 to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and further directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant as compensation and damages. These directions were to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the order.
5. Aggrieved by the said order learned District Forum, the OP had filed these three appeals bearing No. 1968 of 2002 (RBT No. 1537 of 2008), Appeal No. 1966 of 2002 (RBT No. 1539) and Appeal No. 1967 of 2002 (RBT No. 1540) before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same have now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate appeared for the appellant Sh. Shashi in all the three appeals whereas Sh. Mool Chand, father of the respondent appeared in Appeal No. 1968 of 2002 (RBT No. 1537 of 2008) and other respondents i.e. Sh. Avtar Singh in Appeal No. 1966 of 2002 (RBT No. 1539 of 2008) and Sh. Sanjay Kumar in Appeal No. 1967 of 2002 (RBT No. 1540 of 2008) were proceeded against ex parte despite service.
6. Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum had wrongly held that the institute was not a recognized institute. He emphatically submitted that the institute run by the OP was a duly recognized institute and it continues to be so even till date. He further submitted
