DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 400 of 23-12-2022

Decided on : 02-06-2023

Aryan Gupta S/o Sh. Rupinder Kumar Gupta R/o #5109, Post office Bazar, Bathinda, Punjab.

Versus

Chairman Chandigarh Group of Colleges Landran, Kharar- Banur Highway Sector 112, Greater Mohali, Punjab 140307 (India).

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Jindal, Advocate

For opposite party : Opposite party ex-parte.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Aryan Gupta (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Chandigarh Group of Colleges Landran (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant had sought enrollment in B.com (Hons.) Course at Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Landran, Mohali and paid fees to the tune of Rs.31,500/- which was refundable in nature. The transaction Id for some of the transactions was d166d3cb5a25477e057b (Rs.10,000/-) and another payment was made in HDFC Bank account number HDFC00035789414 (Rs.5000/-) by way of Internet transactions carried out at Bathinda. In addition to the same, complainant had mistakenly credited the remaining amount of Rs.16,500/- twice on 16 September 2022 by way of IMPS transactions. In this way complainant paid Rs 16,500/- extra in addition to the admission fee of Rs 31,500/-.

3. It is alleged that Lakvir Singh representative of the opposite party had multiple times assured the complainant of giving a complete refund in case he does not occupy the seat and withdraws from the same. The record of online transactions clearly shows that the opposite party is liable for giving complete refund as well as additional sum of money which was credited accidently by complainant.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant has been running from pillar to post for expressing their concerns, but their requests have gone unheeded. To settle the dispute amicably, the complainant also sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 16-11-2022 so that the amount could be returned without taking legal recourse but no reply has been received to the above stated legal notice and therefore the complainant was forced to take recourse before this Commission. The complainant alleged that he is suffering from grave mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to refund Rs. 48,000/- alongwith upto date interest @12% p.a. and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment in addition to Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. Registered notice of complaint was sent to opposite party but none appeared on its behalf, as such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party.

7. In support of his complaint, in exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit dated 12.4.2023 (Ex. C-4) and the documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-3).

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had depoisted fee of Rs. 31,500/- with the opposite party and thereafter further deposited Rs. 16,500/- by mistake. It is further argued that since the complainant did not puruse his course and as such, is demanding refund of fee deposited with the opposite party but the opposite party refused to pay the same which amounts to deficiency in service.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

10. It is admitted fact that complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.31,500/- and thereafter Rs. 16,500/- in the account of the opposite party and is seeking refund of the same. However, without going into merits of the case, this Commission is of the view that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission keeping in view the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Bihar School Education Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha in Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003 wherein it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in between the students and educational institutions affiliated with recognised universities and boards.

11. Accordingly, this Commission is of the view that there is no relation of consumer and service provider so far as the complainant and opposite party are concerned. Therefore, without going into merits of the cse, present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. However, complainant is given liberty to approach appropriate court of law/Forum for redressal of his grievances.

12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

13. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    02-06-2023

    (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member