Oral
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1318 of 2010
I.B.M.F.T. College through its Manager/Directors,
7th Mile Stone, Khurj Road, Bulandsharh. …Appellant.
1- Himanshu Varma s/o Sri Satish Chand Verma.
2- Rajesh Kumar Gautam s/o D.N. Singh,
Both resident of D.M. Colony Road, Opposite
Bharampruth Complex, Kala Aam, Bulandsharh.
3- Sunit Sethi s/o P.K. Sethi, R/o B-394, Patail
Nagar, IInd, Ghaziabad.
4- Atish Kumar s/o P.K. Singh, R/o New Professor
Colony Dinkar Nagar, Refinary Township,
Begusari Bheir. B.
5- Amit Sharma s/o P.C. Sharma, R/o House no.
249/7, Surya Nagar Chandpur Nagar, Bulandshahr.
6- Siddharth Gaur s/o Shiv Kumar Gaur, R/o Shakti
Kunj, Chandpur Road, Near Railway Crossing
Bulandshahr.
7- Love lDeep Sharma s/o Ragunandan Prasad Sharma,
R/o Numaish Road, (Near Khalasa School,
Bulandsharh. .…Respondents.
Present:-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.
Sri Nitin Khanna, Advocate for appellant.
Sri O.P. Duvel, Advocate for the respondents.
Date 30.8.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President: The instant appeal has been filed against judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bulanshahr in complaint case no.379 of 2005 decided on 22.6.2010.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainants/ appellants that the appellant is an institution to provide higher education and affiliated to U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and in the academic year 2000-01, I.P. Degree College, Bulandshahr who also got the recognition from Charan Singh University, Meerut to provide BCA course. A scheme was announced for the students who took admission in BCA course in the year 2000-01 in IBMFT College that the students who will do BCA from their institute will be given Rs.1000.00 per month as struggle allowance for one year after getting the degree.
The appellant institute has done a huge publicity by providing information about this scheme and when students and their parents contacted for admission, the director of the institute informed them about this scheme verbally. Apart from this, this scheme was also specially mentioned in the letters sent to the students. Being attracted by the aforesaid scheme, the complainants, instead of taking admission in any other institute, took admission in the aforesaid institute in the BCA course and obtained the BCA degree in the academic session 2002-03.
After obtaining the degree, when the complainants and their parents demanded the above mentioned struggle allowance, then firstly the college administration cited lack of funds as the reason for not paying the allowance and made an excuse and said that they would be able to give struggle allowance from the money received from admissions for the academic session 2003-04. Later on contacting the office of the Institute, it was told that any action in this regard can be taken only after a decision is taken in the meeting of the Management Committee of the college and after that, excuses were made for the meeting not being held, being postponed due to their internal differences and lack of funds in the Institute due to their internal chaos.
Ultimately a registered notice was given on behalf of the complainants on 21.01.04 which was not replied. It appears that the opposite party does not want to make any payment to the complainants. The complainants are forced to file the complaint. Thereafter, the complainants have filed a complaint before the ld. District Consumer Commission which was allowed by the ld. District Consumer Commission.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the instant appeal has been filed.
During the course of hearing of the instant appeal Sri O.P. Duvel, ld. counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of this court in appeal no.284 of 2009 decided on 27.8.2009 but the facts of the case relied upon by the ld. counsel for the respondents/complainants are on entirely different footings that the facts of the present case. Therefore, the judgment is not applicable.
Having heard the ld. counsel for the respective parties and after going through the judgment passed by the ld. District Consumer Commission, I find substance in the argument of the ld. counsel for the appellant that it is not a case of consumer related dispute. Therefore, the ld. District Consumer Commission has wrongly proceeded in the matter while deciding the complaint.
In view of the aforesaid and in my opinion, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgment and order dated 22.6.2010 is liable to be set aside.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 22.6.2010 is set aside.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be returned to the appellant as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
A certified copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
(Justice Ashok Kumar)
President
JafRi, PA I
Court 1
