Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.3011 of 2016
Director, Seth Srinivas Agarwal Institute of
Engineering & Technology, Naramau,
Kanpur Nagar. …Appellant.
Shiv Mahendra, Advocate, aged about 60 years,
S/o Sri RAghunath Singh, R/o House no.7/66,
Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. …Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.
Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
Date 18.5.2023
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the District Forum, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.403 of 2015.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned order dated 28.3.2016 is based on conjectures and surmises and has been passed against the facts of the case. The ld. Forum has failed to ensure as to whether the notice was served upon the appellant/college or not and proceeded ex-arte against the appellant. The ld. Forum has failed to take cognizance that the case was filed through Shiv Mahendra who is an Advocate and not through his son who was the student who has shown his son below poverty line to avail the government scholarship and fees reimbursement scheme by using fabricated and fake documents. The complainant’s son has deposited only Rs.1,96,090.00 on the basis of fake documents. Due to meager deposit of fees appellant college bear a loss of Rs.1,51,110.00 to which the appellant is fully entitled to receive it.
The education matter cannot be heard by the District Forum because it does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava. None appeared for the respondent. We have perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record.
We have seen the operative portion of the impugned judgment of the ld. District forum which is as follows:
“परिवादी का प्रस्तुत परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूध् एकपक्षीय व आंशिक रूप से इस आशय से स्वीकार किया जाता है कि प्रस्तुत निर्णय पारित करने के 30 दिन के अंदर विपक्षी, परिवादी को छात्रवृत्ति के रूप में रू027,640/-, काशन मनी के रूप में रू05000/- एंव बुक बैंक हेतु रू03000/- तथा परिवाद व्यय के रूप में रू02000/- अदा करें।”
This case does not involve education and prayer was only to return the scholarship money of Rs.27,640.00, caution money of Rs.5,000.00 and book bank of Rs.3,00.000. The ld. District Forum only permitted these amount alongwith cost of the suit Rs.2,000.00 and no interested was levied. These amount are not educational amount but it is personal scholarship, personal cashion money and personal amount of book bank which the respondent/complainant was entitled to get.
Regarding allegation of fraud etc. the appellant may go to the proper civil court. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgment and order of the ld. District Forum. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Dated 18.5.2023
Jafri, PA I
Court 2
