As the facts and point of law involved in all these revision petitions is the same and similar, revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. Facts are being taken from revision petition No.1017/2012. Complainant/petitioner took admission in GNIIT course conducted by the respondent at its Gandhi Nagar by paying a fee of Rs.1,40,000/- after obtaining the finance from the City Bank. The Gandhi Nagar branch was closed and the petitioner along with other students was accommodated in another branch at Jayanagar. Petitioners joined at Jayanagar but later on discounted the studies on the ground that the petitioner was given step-motherly treatment at the new branch. Petitioner demanded refund of the fee paid which the respondent refused. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that he had to discontinue the studies as the respondent had failed to provide the promised infrastructure and education. District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has -3- been dismissed by a detailed order. State Commission in its order has recorded the following reasons for dismissing the appeal: 11. The allegations of the complainants that, there was step motherly treatment has no basis. Some of the students completed their course and they got the responsible job. These complainants have voluntarily withdrawn from the said course assigning some reasons best known to them. When there is a voluntarily withdrawal they cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OPs. In addition to that, complainants have not paid the entire fee of the said course. When they are the defaulters they cannot allege the deficiency in service. Under the circumstances, allegations made by the complainant as to quality of education, infrastructure, facilities etc., appears to be an after thought one. 12. the DF has thoroughly considered each and every aspect of the matter and made a threadbare discussion with reference to the documents, evidence relied on by the litigating parties and rightly come to the conclusion that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, that conclusion appears to be judicious. On the other hand, appellants have failed to show before this Commission that the said impugned order is erroneous, capricious, suffers from legal infirmity, unsustainable in law. There is no proof that the said order suffers from any error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. We do not find any -4- illegality or irregularity in the conclusion arrived at by the DF. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:…..” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Since the petitioners voluntarily withdrew from the studies, they cannot allege deficiency in service against the respondent. No merits. Dismissed. | 
