(Delivered on 09/08/2018)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.         By this appeal,  appellant  have questioned   the  validity  and  legality  of the  of the impugned judgment and award dated 02/12/2016 passed in consumer complaint  No. 660/2014, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur  whereby  award was passed  in the sum of Rs. 51,347/-  with  interest  at the rate of 9% p.a. with effect from 18/06/2014.  Part of compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and  litigation cost  in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

2.         The award is challenged on the ground that  when the complainant – Smt. Rakhi Sandip Bharti who had agreed for settlement  in respect of cancellation  of the admission  of her ward  Master Shantanu S. Bharti  in the EXCEL JEE course of appellant.

3.         The learned Forum below failed to consider that   complainant – Smt. Rakhi Sandip Bharti had made an application    to cancel the admission  and admitted on   27/06/2014 that no dues  payable by  the appellant . Despite the fact that  according  to the rules of the appellant   refund was not  permissible  the  complainant, a   English  knowing person, knew  that  no refund  of any fee is payable, if   admission is cancelled after one week of  due date of respective installment.   The installment in the sum of Rs. 53,180/-  and registration fee in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid  by the complainant   before 06/06/2014. However,  the complaint was lodged  on 03/12/2014.

4.         There is no dispute  about the limitation to file the complaint.

5.         The dispute  relates  to the rules which were known  by the complainant she  had accepted  that   the settlement amount in the sum of Rs. 11,833/- as refund  was  paid  after cancelling the admission  of her son. Thus considering the document dated 14/08/2014 regarding refund statement  and document cum receipt  of  the admission cancellation, signed by the complainant herself,  we think the submission advanced by the appellant that the learned Forum was wrong to award refund of entire amount and also compensation  becomes  acceptable submission. We do not have benefit of hearing  the   submission  on  behalf of the respondent  as respondent remained  absent  and was marked exparte by order dated 06/06/2018 in this appeal.

6.         That being  so, contentions raised on behalf of the  appellant remained   uncontroverted  and since having  support of documents in faour of the appellant. Appellant could not have been  held  liable  to pay any amount  to the complainant.

7.         Hence, appeal is allowed. We set aside the  impugned judgment and award  and dismiss the   complaint.  No order as to cost in appeal.