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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3470

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHRI RAM ACADEMY – Appellant
Versus
SANJEEB KUMAR PANIGRAHI – Respondent
SC/29/A/1569/2024



Petitioner Advocates:SHARAN B TADAHAL ,Respondent Advocate: I.P(Sanjeeb Kumar)

Date of filing: 13.06.2024 Date of Disposal: L2.03.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES (PRINCIPAL REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU BENCH)

DATED: 12th DAY OF MARCH 2026 PRESENT CORAM: HON,BLE MT, JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA -

PRESIDENT and HON'BLE Mrs. DMASHREE M - LADY MEMBER sct29 t At L569t2024 Shri Ram Academy, Golden Blossom Apartment, Kadugodi, -

Bengaluru 560 067.

Rep. by its Director Sri.

Mukesh Singh.

(Rep. by Sri. Sharan B Tadhal, .....Appellant/s.

Advocate)

'Y/s-

Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, Aged About 46 Years, S/o. Jayakrishna Panigrahi, R/at: No.23014, Prestige Shanti kiketan, ITPL Main Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 048.

(Rep. by party in-person) ..... Respondent/s.

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed by the opposite party Under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short "the C.P. Act") challenging the order dated:

in by L8.04.2024 passed C.C. No.22L/2023 the II Bangalore Urban Additional District Consumer (in Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, short "the District Commission").

2. The Appellant was the opposite party and Respondent was the complainant before the District Commission. The rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has admitted his son Master Aaryan Panigrahi for the academic year 2018-19 to Shri Ram Global School run by opposite party bearing admission number SRGS/18-1910062 with the Karnataka STS No.164849817. The academic year was ended on 29.05.2023. The opposite parties have collected a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the form of donation/capitation fee in violation of Clause - 2 & 3 of the NOC Certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka under Certificate No. ED 186 PGC 2019, dated: 25.03.2019. As per the said Circular, opposite party has no right to collect the Capitation Fee or voluntary Donations at the time of granting admission to ward and liable to be refunded. TC was issued by the school and thereafter he has approached the opposite party for refund of the capitation fee paid which they have declined to refund. Therefore pleading deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice the complainant has filed the complaint.

4.

The opposite party has opposed the complaint by filing version contending that, Shri Ram Global School ts managed by one Nature's Academy of Education Trust by its Director Mr. Balakrishna Reddy. The opposite party is a separate institution run by one Mr. Mukesh Singh since 2018. The complainant has no way connected to the opposite party. Opposite party never received any sum of Rs.15,000/- in the form of capitation fee or donation. Hence there is no question of violation of NOC Certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka. When there is no occasion for Unfair Trade Practice or deficiency of service the complainant is not entitled for refund from the opposite party.

4(a). It is further contended that, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was received from the complainant on

18.04.2018 towards sports fees for cricket coaching by Shri Ram Academy and it is no way connected to the Shri Ram Global School. Complainant has not paid any amount to the Shri Ram Global School. Hence the complaint is not maintainable.

5.

Before the District Commission both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence as CW-1 and RW-1. On behalf of the complainant 09 documents came to be marked as Ex.P.1 to P.9 and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.

6.

The District Commission after hearing both parties allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund Rs.15,000/- with interest at Bolo per annum and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.

Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party has preferred the present Appeal.

7.

We have heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Appellant and also the Respondent party in-

person for admission of the Appeal. Since both parties have addressed their arguments on

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 Back to top