1.     The Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh-Patiala Highway, Ram Nagar (Near Banur) (Punjab) through its Chairman and Corporate Office at S.C.O 51-52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

2.     Ashok Garg, Director Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh-Patiala Highway, Ram Nagar (Near Banur) (Punjab)

……Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

V e r s u s

1.Rohit Goyal son of Vinod Kumar Goyal, R/o B-1, 331/1 Jawahar Nagar, Gali No.6, Goniana Mandi, Distt. Bathinda (Punjab).

2.All India Council for Technical Education (A statutory body of Government of India) 7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, through its Secretary.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             )]

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

i)      to refund the amount of Rs.46,980/- (47980 – 1000) to the complainant

ii)     to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation

iii)   to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 & 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs”.

2.           

3.           rdsemester, in the Branch of Mechanical Engineering (LEET entry programme), long before the actual start date of academic Session 2011-2012. It was stated that the complainant further deposited a sum of Rs.47,980/-, for the said Course, for which only an informal receipt Annexure C-3 was issued, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It was further stated that the complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on 12.09.2011, on account of Hostel fees, vide receipt Annexure C-4. It was further stated that the classes, in Opposite Party No.1 Institute, commenced on 13.09.2011, and the complainant attended the same upto 27.09.2011 only. Subsequently, the complainant got admission, in the Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering and Technology, Bathinda, where he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.47,825/-. Accordingly, the complainant, alongwith his father, approached Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, for the refund of entire fees. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, initially, refused to refund the fees, but, later on, refunded a sum of Rs.50,000/- only. It was further stated

4.              Notice sent for the service of Opposite party No.1 was received back, with the report of refusal. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.09.2012.

5.            

6.           

7.           

8.           

9.           

10.         

11.        

12.        

13.         

14.        

15.        

16.         While interpreting the provisions of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which are para-materia to the provisions of Section11(2)(b) of the Act, in

“4.

XXX                              8. 

17.         

18.        

19.        

20.        

21.        

Pronounced.

October 22, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.)

Argued by:                  

Dated the 22^nd

ORDER

              further stated that the applicants/ appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, had maintained a register, at the gate of their premises, and the gatekeeper recorded the details therein,  

2.            

3.           

4.              

5.           6.           

7.           

8.           

9.           

10.        

Sd/-                                               

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.))

PRESIDENT