Universal Education Society, Derabassi, Distt. Mohali, through its Chairman Sh. Gurpreet Singh. 2nd Address: SCO No.84, First Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Sh. Manish Kumar Singh son of Sh. Jitendra Narayan Singh R/o V.P.O. Pokhrera,  District Saran (Chapra), Bihar.

 ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. R.K. Dogra, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed by the Opposite Party against the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) whereby the complaint was allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to refund to the complainant Rs.40,600/-, which was deposited by him with the Opposite Party after deducting the proportionate fee for the period of one month as well as Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges as per UGC Guidelines. The Opposite Party was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.  

                    ,

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant on 03.09.2010, took admission in B.Tech (Civil) in the college run by Opposite Party  Society and deposited Rs.40,600/- as fee. It was stated that the complainant never attended any counseling and the admission was given to him only on the basis of his positive marks in A.I.E.E.E. According to the complainant, the environment of the Opposite Party  college was not congenial for academic pursuits, and the OP was raising demand for extra money on one pretext or the other. It was stated that he attended the classes of Opposite Party  College for only one day and sought refund of the entire fee deposited by him but he was told to come after one month to take refund of the fee. When he visited the office of Opposite Party  for the refund of the fees, Opposite Party  put off the matter to avoid refund of fee.  Hence, non refund of the fee by the Opposite Party  amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint was filed.  

3.                           Opposite Party  was duly served but it refused to accept the summons. Thus, Opposite Party was deemed to be served. As none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.04.2011.

4.                           Complainant led evidence in support of his case. 

5.                           After hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainant and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.                           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties, and have perused the record carefully.

8.                           It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/appellant that proper service was not effected on them and the order of the learned District Forum to proceed exparte against the Opposite Party cannot sustain. In support of his contention he referred to the case Ajit Singh Vs. Santokh Singh and others 2002-03 PLR 769  This authority is not helpful to the Opposite Party/appellant; because that was a case relating to transfer of immoveable property based on an agreement. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that no prudent person in normal course would like to ignore court proceedings in relation to any immovable property as it could have serious consequences like dispossession of such person from the property and its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. It is not so in the present case. We have been seeing daily that the Opposite Parties are alleged to have committed various irregularities and against whom complaints are filed for deficiency in goods or service, do refuse to accept summons, may be just to delay the disposal of the complaint and if an order is passed against them, to come forward, that they were never served properly. In the present case one set of summons were sent at the address of the college but the envelop was received back with a report of the Courier service as RTO/N/S, which means return to office. Another set of summons were sent through Process Server at SCO No. 84, first floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh but officials of the Opposite Party refused on 4.2.2011 to accept the same.  It was on the basis of this report dated 4.2.2011, that the appellant was proceeded against exparte. The contention of learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/appellant that they never refused to accept service is not borne out from the record. There is no evidence produced by the Opposite Party/appellant to show as to how many persons were working in the said office and what their names are. No evidence has been adduced as to which of them was deputed to receive such summons/notices. Affidavit of none of them has been attached to suggest if no summons were tendered to them or that they never refused to accept the same. Even the memorandum of appeal has been drafted and signed by Sh. R.K. Dogra, Advocate and not by any official of the Opposite Party. There is therefore, no averment from any official to suggest if the summons were not tendered or they did not refuse to accept the same. The bald assertion of the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/appellant without there being any affidavit of an employee of the appellant cannot be accepted.

9.                           The conduct of the Opposite Party/appellant in refusing to accept summons/notices is further demonstrated that when a free copy of the impugned order was sent to the Opposite Party/appellant, at their sector 38-C office, the process server tendered the same to their employee Ms. Swati but she told the Process Server that the said order would be received by Ms. Punam, sitting on the second floor of the office. When the Process Server tendered the copy of the order to Ms. Punam she refused to accept the same. The Opposite Party refused to accept the free copy of the order, which shows that they are in the habit of refusing to accept Court summons/orders.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party/appellant was rightly proceeded against exparte.

11.                       The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/appellant has then argued that the District Forum, Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. According to him the college in which the complainant took admission is on Lalru–Handesra Road, Lalru, in, Distt. Mohali, Punjab, where the complainant had deposited the fee and where according to him the alleged deficiency took place in imparting the education. His contention is that no part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh and, therefore, the complaint should have been returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Forum. This argument is opposed by the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent. According to him there is no such plea taken by the Opposite Party/appellant before the District Forum because the  Opposite Party/appellant  was proceeded against exparte. Secondly, there is no dispute about it that the Opposite Party/appellant has corporate office at SCO No. 84, first floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh. The Head Office being at Chandigarh, where the fee was deposited and the receipt of fee was issued from the said office. Hence the District Forum Chandigarh had the jurisdiction to try this complaint.

12.                       As regards merits, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant/respondent attended the college only for one day and could not have assessed the various defects in the teaching institution.  According to him the seat vacated by the complainant has not been filled up and therefore, in view of the Govt. of Punjab order dated 21.6.2011 the complainant was not entitled for refund of the fee. As against it learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent has argued that the allegations made by the complainant about the inadequacy have gone un-rebutted. Even while filing the appeal, no affidavit of any office bearer of the Opposite Party/appellant to contradict allegations leveled by the complainant has been attached. Further no evidence was produced by the Opposite Party/appellant to suggest that the seat vacated by the complainant/respondent was not filled up. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has rather argued that he was given admission by the Opposite Party/appellant when the last date for admission was already over. The Opposite Party/appellant did not produce any evidence to suggest if a waiting list was prepared to give admission to the next applicant as and when a seat is vacated. According to him the learned District Forum rightly directed the refund of fee after deducting the proportionate fee for the period of one month as well as Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference.

13.                       In view of the above, discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- in appeal.  

14.                       A sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the appellant  at the time of filing this appeal.  After the expiry of the period for filing revision, the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest, if any accrued thereon, shall be paid to the complainant/respondent in partial satisfaction of its claim, in case no stay order is received.    

          Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.