Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.364/2004.
(2) Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The Appellant/original Complainant had taken admission in the college run by the Respondent/original Opponent by paying an amount of `21,000/- as admission fee and donation of `25,000/-. The Appellant/original Complainant contended that the Opponent had given him a receipt of admission fees paid, however, not issued receipt for donation. At the time of taking the admission it was agreed that if the Appellant/original Complainant gets admission in other college the fees paid would be returned. The Appellant/original Complainant had taken admission on 31.10.2003 in Nath Homeopathic College and hence, he had cancelled his admission in the Opponent’s college on 31.10.2003. However, Opponent had not returned back the admission fee and donation paid by the Appellant/original Complainant. Not only this, the Respondent/Opponent had not returned original certificates submitted by the Appellant/original Complainant with the Opponent College. Alleging this as deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent, the Appellant/original Complainant had filed consumer complaint praying for refund of `46,000/- along with interest.
(3) The Opponent had challenged the complaint by filing written version contending therein that the Appellant/original Complainant had paid an amount of `21,000/-. The Opponent denied that the Appellant/original Complainant had come to him on 31.10.2003 and requested for the refund of `46,000/-. The Opponent also contended that the contention of the Appellant/original Complainant that on 31.12.2004 he had cancelled his admission is not correct. The Complainant had complained to the Directorate of Medical Education and Research by his letter dated 04.11.2003 for return of admission fees and original papers filed by the Appellant/original Complainant. In response to the complaint filed by the Appellant/original Complainant to the DMER, the DMER directed the Opponent to return original papers. There is no mention in the letter about return of admission fees. The Opponent/original Respondent further contended that the Appellant had dispatched a letter putting a date 31.10.2003. From perusal of the said letter it is seen that the Appellant/original Complainant had sent letter putting a wrong date. The Opponent had prayed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complaint may please be dismissed with costs.
(4) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent, the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the pleadings of the advocates of both the parties arrived at the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Opponent and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order the original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(5) We heard Advocate Mr.Anand Kulkarni, for the Appellant and Mr.Avinash Birajdar, advocate for the Respondent.
(6) Admittedly, the Appellant had taken admission on 15.10.2003 by paying admission fees of `21,000/- in the college run by the Respondent. The Appellant miserably failed to prove the fact that he had paid donation of `25,000/- by adducing any evidence. The Appellant had taken admission in Nath Homeopathic College on 31.10.2003, the last date of the admission. The Appellant failed to prove that he had cancelled admission in the college run by the Respondent on 31.10.2003 or before that. No doubt, there is a letter on record on which there is a date of 31.10.2003. However, the said letter is dispatched on 03.11.2003 and is received by the Respondent on 06.11.2003. Even the Directorate and Medical Education and Research by their letter dated 04.11.2003 written to the Respondent had directed the Respondent to return the original papers of the Appellant. The District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record has passed the order, which is just and proper. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Appellant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 16th October, 2012.
