1. Alleging deficiency of service the complainant filed this case against the O.P. for a direction to award compensation.
2.  The case of the complainant is that   he had taken admission into +2 Arts under NIOS.The complainant has deposited a cash of Rs.10,000/-under NIOS  and after receiving such amount  the O.P.has issued  receipt No.348 dtd.15.9.2016 in favour of the complainant. The O.P. after received the said amount had not taken any steps for admission nor enrolled as a student   of his institution. The complainant approached the O.P on several occasions as the O.P. did not take any step the complainant filed this case against him .Though the complainant had issued advocate notice for refund of the said amount even if received by the O.P he could not take any step for refund of the same .The action made by the O.P. creates mental agony and   for the negligence of the O.P. the complainant sustained heavy loss without taking admission. The action of the O.P. forced the complainant to file this case against him for payment of compensation for the loss of his study.
3. After being noticed the O.P. sent a written statement through Regd. Post .The case of the O.P. is that the complainant had deposited Rs.10,000/-  for examination  .The  NIOS has issued a receipt in favour of the complainant. The O.P. had no role due to non-cooperation of the complainant. The complainant filed  the Xerox copy of receipt showing the payment to the O.P.The O.P. had  failed to  admit into NIOS
4. The poring of determination in this case whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.P. whether the O.P. caused deficiency of service against the complainant.
5. The complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- on 15.9.2016 before the O.P. and the O.P. has granted a receipt vide No.348 dtd.15.9.2016 in favour of the complainant. As the complainant has deposited the amount and the O.P had received the same and also there is no dispute that the O.P. had received the same amount form the complainant. As such the complainant is a consumer against the O.P. The O.P has not taken any further steps for admission and for examination which causes deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant. Though the complainant had sent an advocate notice to the O.P for taking suitable action, but the O.P. remained silent.
6. Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and the O.P we allow the case of the complainant and direct the O.P. to refund Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only with 10% interest per annum till realization from the date receive of money to the complainant. The O.P. is directed to  pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only  towards compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take step against the O.P. for realization of awarded amount. This case is disposed of accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 19th^h day of July, 2019.