Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/11/472

MANAGER, RKDF EDUCATION GROUP - Complainant(s)

Versus

SACCHIDANAND PANDEY - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2011

(Arising out of order dated 14.01.2011 passed in C.C.No.713/2009 by District Forum, Bhopal)

 

1. MANAGER,

    RKDF EDUCATION GROUP,

    202- GANGA JAMUNA COMPLEX,

    ZONE-I, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

2. SMT. PREETI TIWARI,

    DIRECTOR, B.Ed., RKDF COLLEGE,

    HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.).                                        … APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

SACHHIDANAND PANDEY,

S/O SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR PANDEY,

R/O CHHOTA BADIYAPUR, MOTIHARI,

DISTRICT-POORVI CHAMPARAN, BIHAR (M.P.).                               …RESPONDENT.                               

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA       :      PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                              :      MEMBER

                      

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                   None for the appellants.

                   Shri Rajesh Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                  O R D E R

(Passed On 01.12.2016)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

            

                   This appeal is filed by the opposite parties being aggrieved by the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in C.C.No.713/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was allowed.

2.                     The brief facts of the case as portrayed by the complainant are that the opposite party/appellant gave advertisement for admission in different courses in newspaper “Hindustan” dated 08.10.2007 and the representatives of the appellants stayed at Room No. 39, Hotel Elite, Muzzafarpur, Bihar.  It is alleged that he met with the representatives of the appellants for getting

-2-

admission in B.Ed., who told him that their college is affiliated with Barkatullah University Bhopal and had recognition with the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).  After going through the advertisement and met with the representatives of the appellants he took admission in B.Ed course on 29.10.2007.  He further alleged that he regularly attend the college but no presence was marked.  Later he came to know that neither the college was affiliated with the Barkatullah University nor was recognized by NCTE.  He therefore made a demand for refund of fees deposited by him and original documents submitted by him but the appellant failed to refund the fees, however the documents were also returned so late which resulted in loss of an academic year.  Thus he filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. 

3.                     The opposite party-appellant RKDF Educattion Group resisted the complaint stating that since the disputes regarding counselling procedure for B.Ed were pending in different courts, the B.Ed. counselling and examinations were not conducted.  The appellants have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  It is also denied that for want of original documents the respondent lost his academic year 2008-2009.  They therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.                     The District Forum after going through the documents and evidentiary material produced on record has found that the opposite party /appellant committed deficiency in service in not refunding the fees and necessary original documents when they have no affiliation and recognition with Barkatullah University and NCTE respectively.  The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund the fees Rs.15,000/- with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost Rs.1,000/- to be paid jointly or severally.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the order of the District Forum. Appellants chose to remain absent.

-3-

6.                     From the record, we find that it is an admitted position that respondent took admission in B.Ed. in appellant’s institution in the year 2007.  The allegations made by the respondent regarding non-affiliation with the Barkatullah University, Bhopal and non-recognition with NCTE were not controverted by the appellants.  The appellant also failed to produce any such documents showing that they were affiliated with the Barkatullah University, Bhopal and recognized by the MCTE.   Thus it is clear that when they have not proper affiliation and recognition, they committed deficiency in service in giving admission to the respondent.  It is true that when the respondent came to know that the appellant college has not proper affiliation and recognition he withdraw himself from the college which not only caused inconvenience and mental harassment but also resulted in loss of an academic year 2008-2009. The appellants committed further deficiency in service in not refunding the fees and the original documents submitted by the respondent were also returned after a long time due to which the respondent failed to take admission in any other institution.  We find that the District Forum was justified in allowing the complaint and directing the appellants to refund fees with compensation and cost.  We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Forum.

7.                     For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter.  The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed at the admission stage.