NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4303/2010

SWAMI VIVEKANAND INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIKHIL SINGLA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AMAN PREET SINGH RAHI

03 Jan 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4303 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 03/08/2010 in Appeal No. 1867/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. SWAMI VIVEKANAND INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY & ANR.
Through Its Chairman, Ram Nagar, P.O. Jhansala, Near Banur
Patiala
Punjab
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. NIKHIL SINGLA
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Singla, R/o House No. 2007/B/1, Mohalla Lal Bagh
Patiala
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. AMAN PREET SINGH RAHI
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Jan 2011
ORDER

Complainant appeared in Entrance Test and on being declared successful, he was allotted a seat in Mechanical Engineering in the petitioner’s college by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. 

-2-

Respondent deposited a sum of Rs.43,480/- on 16.07.2008.  He surrendered his seat on 05.09.2008 and requested the petitioner to refund the fee and return the original documents.  Petitioner neither refunded the fee nor returned the original documents initially but later on, documents were returned.  As the documents were returned after some time, respondent lost the opportunity to get admission in another institute.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum vide its order dated 11.11.2009 partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.42,480/- to the complainant after deducting Rs.1,000/- from the deposited amount in terms of the Notification issued by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation including costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the State Commission.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had left the college after starting of the course.  A similar contention raised by

-3-

the petitioner was rejected by the fora below on the ground that the petitioner had nowhere pleaded that the respondent had left the institute after the start of the course.  Since the petitioner had failed to take the plea that the respondent had left the institute after start of the course, the plea now raised before us cannot be accepted. 

On merits, we find that the fora below have directed the petitioner to refund the amount in terms of Notification issued by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the fora below.  Dismissed.

          At this stage, counsel for the petitioner prays that the sum of Rs.25,000/- lying deposited with the State Commission along with accrued interest thereon be paid to the respondent in part satisfaction of the decree.  Prayer is accepted.  State Commission is directed to release the sum of Rs.25,000/- lying with it, deposited by the petitioner, along with accrued interest thereon to the respondent in part satisfaction of the decreetal amount.

Petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount to the respondent within eight weeks.

-4-

          Copy of this order be sent to the respondent.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.