Back
DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
Bholanath Patel – Appellant
Versus
Maya Academic of Advance Cinematic – Respondent
ORDER
These two (02) revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 29.06.2015 of the State Commission in appeals no. 471 and no. 478 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 06.06.2014 of the District Commission in complaint no. 166 of 2013.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 06.06.2014 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 29.06.2015 of the State Commission and the petitions.
3. The matter pertains to a course AD 3D + (Advance Diploma in 3D Animation and Visual Effects Plus) being imparted by M/s Maya Academic of Advance Cinematic, the respondent no. 1 herein. Its managing director Mr. Rajesh Mittal is the respondent no. 2 herein.
In a nutshell the case of the complainant, the petitioner herein, is that it had been advertised and assured by M/s Maya Academic of Advance Cinematic that this course was for 18 months at a fee of Rs.175282/- plus 12.36% service tax i.e. total Rs. 187641/- and the batch would start from 24.11.2008. He enrolled therein after also taking loan from the Central Bank of India and paid the entire fee in installments t
Completion of Course – When it was advertised and assured that the course would be completed within 18 months, and the same was not completed even after 52 months, the question of furnishing the ‘sho....
The Court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental activities are not subject to Consumer Protection Act provisions, affirming the need for liberalism in condoning delays for appeals.
Forfeiture of entire fees paid by student on withdrawal from course within a fortnight of joining is unjustified but amounts to unjust enrichment.
(1) Educational matters – Educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.(2) Education institutions – Educational institutions and the services they provide are n....
The importance of proof of service of the Show Cause Notice and the violation of principles of natural justice influenced the court's decision.
Educational institutions do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for post-admission disputes.
The impugned order was contrary to the court's earlier directions, and the authorities were obligated to consider the compliance furnished by the petitioner institution and pass necessary orders in a....
Court found that a medical college's appeal against earlier fee fixation orders lacked transparency and procedural integrity due to undisclosed prior litigation, ultimately affirming the initially se....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
