BEFORE THE
F.A.No.1147 of 2009 against -I, Hyderabad.
Between:
The Chairman, Anwar-ul-Uloom College of
Engineering & Technology, Main Branch
Mallepally,Hyderabad.
N.Kishore, S/o.Narsaiah,
Room No.31, C/o.V.Srikant Goud,
A Hostel, O.U.Campus, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE
SRI SYED ABDULLAH,AND
SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO,
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order ( per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum directing it to refund Rs.35,000/- paid towards
The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined in B.Tech (ECE) in appellant college at Malakpet under Management quota and paid Rs.35,000/- towards first year fee for which the appellant had issued a receipt.
The appellant resisted the case.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 while the opposite party also filed the affidavit evidence of its Academic Advisor and marked Exs.B1 to B9.
The District Forum after considering the evidence on record opined that Ex.A1 receipt showing the address at Malakpet gives an impression that the college is situated at Malakpet, and therefore directed the opposite party to return the original certificates and also refund Rs.35,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 05-11-2007 together with compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant college preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum
The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant sought admission in B.Tech (ECE) course in the appellant college after paying Rs.35,000/- towards fee.
At the outset, we may state the documents i.e. S.S.C. certificate and T.C. were handed over to the complainant by virtue of an order in W.P.No.9624/2007.
The only question that remains is whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the fee paid by him.
In the result the appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed, however no costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
JM