DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Manprit Singh, aged 24 years, s/o Sh.Jaswinder Singh, H.No.1172-B, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                             …..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

The Gurukul Vidyapeeth Institute of Engineering & Technology (through Manager Admission), Head Office, SCO No.51, IInd Floor, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                   PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:     Smt.Ranjit Kaur, authorized agent of complainant.

                        OP – EXPARTE. 

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant contacted the Head Office of OP to get admission in B.Tech (Civil), 3^rd Semester from IGNOU, Delhi through Gurukul’s Study Centre and paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- vide receipt No.7015 dated 9.5.2011 – Annexure A-1 but after some days, he came to know that IGNOU was not approved by the AICTE for part time degree of B.Tech. The complainant submitted an application dated 13.5.2011 to the OP for the refund of amount. The complainant on the instructions of OP submitted another application by putting the date as 12.5.2011 or 14.5.2011 but all in vain. The complainant sent a reminder dated 24.6.2011 – Annexure A-3 through speed post to the OP but despite repeated request and visits, the OP did not refund the money. The complainant sent a reminder-cum-notice dated 20.12.2011 – Annexure A-4 to the OP but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           Initially, Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP but, thereafter, none appeared, as such it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 4.5.2012.

3.           The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.           We have heard the authorized agent of the complainant and have also perused the record.

5.           The averments made in the complaint, as reproduced above in para No.1 of the order, stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant, as well as the Annexures A-1 to A-4.  Annexure A-1 is the copy of receipt dated 9.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. From this document, it is proved that the complainant took the admission with the OP and paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as registration fee. Annexure A-2 & A-3 are the copies of letters dated 12.5.2011 & 24.6.2011, qua which, complainant requested the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.5,000/-. Annexure A-4 is the copy of Request-cum-Notice dated 20.12.2011.

6.           Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the case. Non-refund of the money, despite repeated requests of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.           In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation.

8.           This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to refund the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization, besides Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation.

9.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.