Haryana

StateCommission

A/1033/2015

DINESH NAGPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP SONI - Opp.Party(s)

MAN MOHAN

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1033 of 2015

Date of Institution:        04.12.2015

Date of Decision :         06.04.2016

 

Dinesh Nagpal, Director, Bharti School of Business Studies, 38-N, Model Town, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar at present c/o Career Launchers, PLA Shopping Complex, Near Town Park, Delhi Road, Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Sandeep Soni s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, Resident of House No.1904, Amar Deep Colony, Kaimari Road, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      Amit Kumar Bansal, Director, Bharti School of Business Studies, 38-N, Model Town, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri Suman Jain, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent Sandeep Soni, in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Dinesh Nagpal, Director, Bharti School of Business Studies-Opposite Party No.2, is in appeal against the order dated May 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) vide which the complaint filed by Sandeep Soni-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of Rs.5400/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of deposit, that is, January 5^th, 2013, till payment; Rs.1.00 lac compensation on account of loss of academic year, harassment etc. and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

2.      Opposite Parties, who were stated to be running Study Centre of Karnataka State Open University at Hisar under the name and style of “Bharti School of Business Studies” have been inviting students for doing graduation from Karnataka State Open University. Attracted by the publicity, the complainant also contacted opposite parties and deposited Rs.5400/- on January 5^th, 2013, vide receipt Exhibit C-6. The opposite parties were to supply the study material to the complainant. Not getting any study material and approaching the opposite parties, every time the complainant was assured that the study material was being sent shortly besides that they would receive admit card, roll number etc for examination of B.A. 1^st Year. Despite repeated visits and not getting any satisfactory response, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Despite notice, the opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded exparte.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      There is delay of 181 days in filing of the appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6.      It is stated in the application that the delay occurred because the appellant was not aware of the proceeding before the District Forum and he learnt about the same when he received notice of the execution application in the last week of October, 2015. Thus, the delay occurred in filing of the appeal.

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

8.      In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

9.      In this case, the appellant has taken casual approach and have not proved to be a prudent litigant. The plea taken by the appellant is not believable. A valuable right has accrued to the other party/respondent/complainant. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing of the appeal is made out.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.    Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal.  Though the appellant has denied having charged any amount from the complainant for the purpose of any examination of B.A. 1^st Year of Karnataka University, however, a perusal of Exhibit C-6 shows that the opposite parties/appellant, have charged Rs.5400/- and issued the receipt with specific mention of KSOU 1^st Year (Karnataka State Open University). Not only that, the complainant has placed on the file emails Exhibit C-1 to C-4 showing correspondence in the subject and Exhibit C-5 the list of study centres of different universities where name of the appellant appears at Sr.No.57. Thus, it appears that the denial by the appellant/opposite party of having received the amount of Rs.5400/- is intentional with a view to avoid their liability and contrary to the record. Hence, no ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out.  

11.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 06.04.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL