Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 122
Instituted on : 20.02.2020
Decided on : 24.05.2023
Akshit s/o Sh. Rajiv Kumar R/o H.No.690/2, Gadhi Mohalla, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
Panipat Institute of Engineering & Technology, 70 Milestone, G.T.Road, Samalkha, Panipat through its Principal/Director/Administrator.
..…….……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant’s father in person.
Sh. Bhupender Singh, Assistant Professor for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that the complainant took admission in BBA Ist year for the session 2019-20. He had to study while staying in the hostel of the opposite party, for which he had deposited Rs.30,000/- in cash. Complainant had attended the classes in the opposite party institute for about 15 days. One day he was caught smoking in the hostel room due to which the opposite party expelled the complainant from his institute. It is further submitted that when the parents of the complainant came to know about the incident, then the father of the complainant prayed to the opposite party not to expel his son from the institute. The father of the complainant also assured the opposite party that there will be no such complaint in future. But the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the request of the father of the complainant and remained adamant. Due to expulsion of the complainant from the institute by the opposite party in the middle of the course, the future of the complainant became ruined. It is further submitted that complainant and his father asked for the refund of Rs.30,000/- deposited by them but the opposite party refused for the same by saying, “do whatever you want to do”. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of fee and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its reply submitting therein that the complainant has studied in the institute for about one month and the said hostel has been used during that period. Hostel rules have been violated by the complainant and he also misbehaved with the teachers. Even for his misconduct, he has never been expelled from the college or hostel either verbally or in writing. On 18.08.2019 the complainant father himself requested for cancellation of admission of his son. The admission was cancelled on the request of complainant’s father on 18.08.2019. The father of the complainant was also told that according to your request, the admission was cancelled and as per the notification issued by the University the fees of the student have not been refunded. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Father of the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence vide separate statement dated 10.05.2022. On the other hand, Sh. Suresh Tyagi, Superintendent of OP has tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex. R4 and has made a statement that the reply already filed on their behalf be also read as affidavit and closed evidence vide separate statement dated 15.11.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Through this complaint, complainant has sought refund of Rs.30000/- from the opposite party Institute on the ground that the complainant was caught smoking in the hostel room due to which the opposite party expelled the complainant from his institute. The father of complainant requested the opposite party not to expel his son from the institute and assured that no such complaint will be received from his son in future. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to his requests and expel the student/complainant Akshit from the Institute, due to which his whole year get spoiled and his future get ruined. It is further submitted that complainant had attended the classes in the opposite party institute only for about 15 days and as such he sought the refund of fee deposited by him.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, in Civil Appeal no.848/2014 titled as Teri University Vs Ms. Nikita Jain dated 7 February, 2023. As per this judgment, Hon’ble State Commission has observed that : “Except for the Coaching Institution, the other institutions, imparting education and connected activities, are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions”. On the other hand, opposite party as per his statement dated 05.05.2023 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- towards full and final settlement of this case. But the father of complainant, refused for the alleged offer vide his separate statement dated 11.05.2023.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we herby dispose of the complaint with direction to the opposite party to pay the alleged amount of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.05.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member
