Haryana

StateCommission

A/505/2017

O.D.M.COMPUTER AND MGT EDUCATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

NANDINI VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.THIND

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                First Appeal No.505 of 2017

                                                                Date of Institution:06.04.2017

                                                                   Date of Decision:19.03.2018

 

O.D.M. Computer & MGT Education Approved Study Centre of Guru Jambeshwar University of Science & Technology, Gali No.8, Jawahar Nagar, Hisar through its Director.

…Appellant

                                      Versus

 

Nandini Verma D/o Sh. Raj Kumar Verma aged 22 years, resident of House No.502, Auto Market, opposite Jindal Park, Hisar (Haryana).

                                                                                      …Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

Present:     Mr.J.S. Thind, Advocate for appellant.

                   Mrs. Nandini Verma, respondent in person.

                  

                                                ORDER

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

1.      It was alleged by complainant that she noticed advertisement regarding distance educational programme provided by opposite party (in short ‘OP’). When office of OP was approached she was informed that she was to take admission in Govt. College, Hisar and if that admission would be confirmed then institute would refund the fee after deduction of process fee which was not more than Rs.1000/-. She deposited fee of Rs.9250/- and provisional receipt bearing No.945 dated 31.08.2013 was issued. As she was under impression that 31^st of August would be the last date, as told by the officials and she would be allotted a roll number. It was further alleged that during this period her admission formalities in Govt. College, Hisar in M.Com were completed on 11.09.2013. Thereafter, she approached OP to refund her fee, but, officials of OP told that fee would be refunded after deduction of 60% amount of the total fee of Rs.9250/-. She got served a legal notice upon respondent on 17.09.2013, but, O.P refused to refund her fee.

2.      OP 3 filed reply, controverting her averments and alleged that she took admission in  MBA course of Guru Jambheshwar Univiersity of Science and Technology, Hisar offered by study centre of respondent on 31.08.2013. She paid a sum of Rs.9250/- as first installment of admission fee. On 02.09.2013 fee was deposited in University Bank account by her. She never informed it that she was also trying for admission in Govt. College, Hisar and no such assurance was given to her that her admission fee would be refunded after deduction of processing fee and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, present complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to respondent to pay Rs.8250/- (Rs.9250-1000) to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 25.10.2013 till payment.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for appellant that as per contents of prospectus, copy of which is Ex.R-1, complainant was not entitled for refund in case of admission in any other institution.

7.      This argument is of no avail because it is specifically alleged by the complainant in para No.1 of the complaint that officials of OP/appellant told her that last date for admission was 31^st August 2013, but, the same was extended 30^th September, 2013. It shows that complainant was under impression that she would not able to apply or get admission after 30^th August, 2013. This fact was not specifically denied by O.P. in reply. It is well settled proposition of law that if any fact is not specifically denied, the same amounts to admission and a party may not prove the same. It amounts unfair trade practice, so learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that appellant is liable to refund Rs.9,250/- to the respondent-complainant. Impugned order passed by learned District Forum is well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Hence, appeal is hereby dismissed.

7.      Statutory amount of Rs.4200/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March, 19^th, 2018                               Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K. Bishnoi

                                                            Member                                  Judicial Member

                                                            Addl.Bench                             Addl. Bench

 

R.K.