Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/714

RAI BUSINESS SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANISHK SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 03.12.2015

First Appeal No. 714/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 28.06.2012 passed in complaint case No. 315/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

Rai Business School

A-41, M.C.I.E., Mathura Road

New Delhi-110044

 

Also at:

 

Meadows The Residency

12/1, Mathura Road

Faridabad-121003                                                Appellant

 

Versus

 

Kanishk Sharma

R/o House No. 81, Meethapur Village

New Delhi-110044                                                          Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

Judgement

1.          Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 28.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum-X, New Delhi. Vide said orders the appellant was directed to refund to the respondent an amount of Rs. 2,65,200/- deposited by him towards fees of the course. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- was also awarded. The following paragraph of the impugned orders shall make the facts clear:

“As seen above, it is not a disputed fact that the complainant got admission in MBA course introduced by the respondent institute and deposited fee and other charges as detailed above. He has placed on file the receipts besides other relevant documents including copy of provisional admission letter dated 10.02.09 to which rules and regulations are also appended. Counsel for complainant pointed out that in none of the documents supplied by the institute it was described as a correspondence course. In the provisional admission letter as well it was nowhere mentioned that it will be a degree of distant mode of education. There being no reliable evidence on the file to indicate that the respondent had fairly described it to be a correspondence course, we are inclined to agree with the contention of counsel for complainant that there was misrepresentation/concealment of material fact resulting in huge loss to the complainant who deposited the said amounts with the institute taking it to be a regular course and was thus, justified in asking for refund of fee. Holding the respondent to be guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, we direct them to refund the fee deposited by the complainant (Rs. 2,65,200/-) and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation. Let the order be complied with in one month of the receipt thereof.”

 

2.          We have heard at length the arguments addressed by the Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Pradeep Purohit and Ms. Anuj Yadav, Counsel for the Respondent. We have also perused the documents filed by the parties on record.
3.          Contention of the appellant is that he never made a misrepresentation to the complainant by stating that the course in question was a regular course. It is a matter of common knowledge that the study courses are normally the regular courses. In case of a correspondence course, it is specifically made clear to the candidates that the course would be a correspondence one. A regular course is a rule whereas a correspondence course is an exception. In the absence of any document showing that the appellant made the aforesaid clarification to the respondent, we are not inclined to agree with the contention putforth by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Appeal, therefore, is dismissed being devoid of merits.
4.          Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
5.          FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

MEMBER