DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 126 of 21-03-2013

Decided on 28-06-2013

Amanpreet Kaur Grewal D/o Kulwant Singh Grewal, aged 21 years R/o 1495, Phase-III, Model Town, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Aklia College of Education for Women Aklia Kalan, Distt. Bathinda, through its Principal.

2. Aklia Education & Research Society, Aklia Kalan, District Bathinda, through its Director cum Chairman

3. Aklia College of Education for women Aklia Kalan Distt. Bathinda through its Head of Administration Department

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Rau Girwar Singh Puhanian/Sh. Sandeep Bansal counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Sham Labhaya, counsel for the opposite parties

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she filed complaint before this Forum against the opposite for refund of fee before this Forum which was allowed. The complainant alleged that at the time of admission with the opposite parties, the complainant submitted original documents i.e. 10^th detailed mark sheet, character certificate, 10+2 detailed mark sheet and character certificate with them. The complainant alongwith her father approached the opposite parties many times to return the aforesaid original documents, but they denied to return the same. The counsel for the complainant had a talk with the concerned person and Mrs. Swaranjit Kaur, principal of the college, but they pressurized to withdraw the earlier complaint with apology letter otherwise they may go the court again. The complainant further alleged that due to unlawful custody of her documents, her future has been ruined. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to return the aforesaid original documents and pay her compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and took preliminary objection that this complaint deserves dismissal as earlier a complaint No. 48 dated 24-01-2011 titled 'Amanpreet Kaur Grewal Vs. Aklia College of Education & Others' regarding refund of fee was allowed by this Forum on 24-05-2011, but the complainant has suppressed the fact that the order dated 24-5-2011 was challenged in the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein operation of the impugned order was stayed by the Hon'ble State Commission on 9-8-2011. The opposite parties have pleaded that not a single line was written about the certificates in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant. The original certificates were never submitted by the complainant in the college. Even during the process of admission, she submitted photocopies of required documents/certificates and declined to submit original ones on the pretext that the same are required by her. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant attended her classes only for few days after her admission and became absent from the college may be due to the reason that she had changed her mind from E.T.T. and got admission in any other course. The complainant did not join her classes despite various notices put up on the notice board and ultimately her name was struck off from the roll of college w.e.f. 10-01-2011 on account of long absence and intimation in regard was sent to her on 15-01-2011. The complainant has filed this complaint to built up pressure on the opposite parties to withdraw appeal from the State Commission.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant filed complaint dated 24-01-2011 against the opposite parties seeking refund of her money i.e. fees and the same has been accepted by this Forum vide order dated 24-5-2011. The opposite parties preferred an appeal against that order before the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh and the same is pending wherein the operation of the order dated 24-5-2011 has been stayed. The said stay does not affect the merits of the present case as the same is totally different. The submission of the complainant is that her father received a telephone call on 8-5-2011 i.e. during the pendency of this case from Cell No. 97811-26960 from Manveer Clerk of the opposite parties who asked him to take the original certificates and accordingly, father of the complainant had gone there , but Manveer was not found present there and Punjabi teacher Sukhdeep Kaur had met and asked her father to give an application for taking the documents back and he submitted the application. Then the said teacher asked the father of the complainant to withdraw all the cases against the opposite parties only then original documents shall be given to him. The complainant further submitted that precious study time of her life has been ruined by the opposite parties by retaining her original certificates with them.

6. On the other hand, the submission of the opposite parties is that during the process of admission on 20-10-2010, a printed slip was issued to all the applicants seeking admission in E.T.T. Including the complainant, wherein documents needed for the eligibility of E.T.T. course were shown by marking tick ( ) on the said slip by the Incharge of admission process for the guidance of the candidates and it was required from the candidates to get the required original certificates/documents verified from the staff deployed for the purpose filing the admission forms and to attach photocopies of the required documents with the admission forms. Thus, the original certificates were only checked and verified by the staff of the college deployed for the purpose and no original documents of the candidates, including complainant, was detained by the college staff. On the same day, the complainant and her father duly signed declaration that the admission is provisional and subject to the submission of eligibility certificate. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has filed this complaint to built up pressure on the opposite parties to withdraw appeal filed against earlier complaint from the State Commission. He further submitted that complaint deserves dismissal on the ground of non-maintainability. For this he referred 2012 STPL(CL) 2784 NC titled University of Delhi Vs. Moh. A M Abel Karim & Ors.

7. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties have retained her original of 10^th, +2, character and domicile certificates. To prove her version, she has placed on file a document dated 20-10-2010 Ex. C-2. A perusal of this document reveals that it has been mentioned on it “Documents Need for E.T.T. “ and a mark of tick ( ) has been shown in the column documents and verified against the 10^th, +2, Character Certificate and Domicile. This document has been signed by two persons i.e. complainant and some official of the opposite parties. In such circumstances the plea of the opposite parties that this printed slip was issued to all the applicants seeking admission in E.T.T. including the complainant, wherein documents needed for the eligibility of E.T.T. course were shown by marking tick ( ) on the said slip by the Incharge of admission process for the guidance of the candidates and it was required from the candidates to get the required original certificates/documents verified from the staff deployed for the purpose filing the admission forms and to attach photocopies of the required documents with the admission forms, is not tenable as if it was only the slip which shows the documents needed for admission of E.T.T. then there was no need of the signatures of the complainant and the official of the opposite parties. Moreover, if for arguments sake, it be admitted that the opposite parties have verified the original documents and retained their copies, even then the statement of the opposite parties is contradictory. On the one hand, the pleading of the opposite parties is that this slip has been issued so that the staff deployed for the purpose to verify the original documents and attach the photocopies with the admission form and the original documents were only checked and verified by the staff of the college, and on the other the pleading of the opposite parties is that the admission of the complainant was provisional subject to submission of eligibility certificate and the complainant and her father duly signed the declaration to this effect. Thus, this act of the opposite parties shows that the aforesaid original certificates of the complainant are in possession of the opposite parties.

8. The allegation of the complainant is that her father received a telephone call from the official of the opposite parties namely Manveer, from cell No. 97811-26960 on 8-5-2013 to visit the college and take the original certificates, but when he visited the college premises Sukhdeep Kaur, Punjabi teacher, pressurized him to withdraw all the cases, only then the original documents shall be given to him. This fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite parties. No affidavit of said Manveer or Sukhdeep Kaur has been produced on file denying the allegation of the complainant. Hence, this version of the complainant seems to be correct that he must have been pressurized by the said Sukhdeep Kaur to withdraw the cases.

9. The plea of the opposite parties that the complainant has earlier filed a complaint against which a stay has been granted by the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh and he has not written even a single line regarding original certificates in the earlier complainant is without any basis as this complaint has no relevancy with that complaint as it has separate cause of action.

10. The opposite parties have challenged the maintainability of this complaint and cited 2012 STPL(CL) 2784 NC titled University of Delhi Vs. Moh. A M Abel Karim & Ors. This complaint is maintainable before this Forum and the said authority does not apply to the case in hand as in the aforesaid case the matter regarding evaluation of thesis and award of PHD degree was decided whereas in the case in hand, the facts are regarding return of original certificates submitted by the complainant which were retained by the opposite parties meaning thereby totally different facts.

11. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as the precious study time of the young girl is being wasted due to non-possession of original certificates as she is unable to appear in the exams for further study without submission of original documents. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled Registrar of Manipal university & Anr. Vs. Sushith (Dr) 2013(1) CPJ 260 (NC).

12. In view of what has been discussed above, his complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to return the original 10^th, +2 marksheets, Character and domicile certificate of the complainant to her. In case these certificates are misplaced/lost by the opposite parties, they will arrange the same in duplicate from the concerned board/department.

13. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the complainant will be entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- on account of further wastage of her precious years of study.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    28-06-2013

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul )

    Member Member