ORDER      (DR.R.K.DOGRA, PRESIDENT)

          The instant complaint has been filed by complainant Siya Ram u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2.                The brief facts of the present case are that in the month of July 2019, the complainant was in need to deposit the admission fee of first semester of LL.M. of his daughter namely Twinkle with the OP No.1. On 09.07.2019, the complainant made online transaction of Rs.10,650/- to deposit the admission fee of his daughter and transferred the amount to OP No.1 but the OPs No. 2 and 3 withdrew Rs.10,650/- from the account of complainant but same was not transferred in the account of OP No.1. On 10.07.2019, the complainant made another transaction of Rs.10,650/- to deposit the amount of fee and the said amount was transferred in the account of OP No.1 and said amount was separately deducted from the account of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint with OPs No. 2 and 3 and then the Ops No. 2 and 3 deposited Rs.10,650/- in the account of complainant temporarily with the condition that the complainant could not withdraw the said amount up till the conclusion of enquiry. Thereafter on 21.12.2019, the Ops No.2 and 3 withdrew Rs.10,650/- from the account of complainant. Legal notice dated 01.07.2021 was also served upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties sent reply on false grounds. So, the complainant has come to this Commission with the prayer to direct the opposite parties to deposit Rs.10,650/- along with Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                 Upon notice, respondents No. 1 and 3 appeared and filed their separate written statement but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2, hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 18.11.2021. 4.                   In reply, Op No. 1 submitted that the concerned student deposited admission fee for the course twice amounting Rs.10,650/- and she never submitted any application/representation to the department of laws or the University to refund excess fee. The opposite party No.1 has refunded her excess fee, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

5.                In reply, OP No.3 took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, pre-mature and suppression of true and material facts. It is submitted that on receipt of dispute of complaint, the OP No.3 raised chargeback against merchant book on network portal but subsequently said chargeback was rejected from Merchant Bank and with valid documents on network portal stating that transaction of Rs.10,650/- dated 09.07.2019 is successful rendered to the customer and copy of the same was sent to the complainant and thereafter the complaint of complainant was also closed.

EVIDENCE LED BY COMPLAINANT

6.                In order to prove the allegations of the complaint, the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence after tendering the following documents;

EVIDENCE LED BY OPPOSITE PARTY No.3

7.                Opposite party No.3 in evidence have tendered affidavit of Vikas Goyal, Dy. Vice President & Branch Head, Axis Bank Ltd. as Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence after tendering the following documents;

8                 On the other hand, Shri Deepak Malik, Assistant Law Officer appeared on behalf of OPs No.1, 1-A & 1-B and closed the evidence after tendering the document Ex.R5 i.e. letter to Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat.

9                 After considering the arguments and perusing the whole documents placed on file by both the parties, the following points have been found to be made out:-

1       Whether the complainant is entitled for relief along-with interest and cost.? OPC

2.      Whether the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

STAND TAKEN BY THE COMPLAINANT

10                The counsel for the complainant has contended that on 09.07.2019, the complainant made online transaction of Rs.10,650/- to deposit the admission fee of his daughter and transferred the amount to OP No.1 and the OPs No. 2 and 2 withdrew Rs.10,650/- from the account of complainant but same was not transferred in the account of OP No.1. On 10.07.2019, the complainant made another transaction of Rs.10,650/- to deposit the amount of fee and the said amount was transferred in the account of OP No.1 and said amount was separately deducted from the account of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint with OPs No. 2 and 3 and then the Ops No. 2 and 3 deposited Rs.10,650/- in the account of complainant temporarily with the condition that the complainant could not withdraw the said amount up till the conclusion of enquiry. Thereafter on 21.12.2019, the Ops No.2 and 3 withdrew Rs.10,650/- from the account of complainant. Legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties sent reply on false grounds. Hence, the present complaint.

STAND TAKEN BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

11               The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the concerned student deposited admission fee for the course twice amounting Rs.10,650/- but she never submitted any application/representation to the department of laws or the University to refund excess fee. The opposite party No.1 has refunded her excess fee. Further on receipt of dispute of complaint, the OP No.3 raised chargeback against merchant book on network portal but subsequently said chargeback was rejected from Merchant Bank and with valid documents on network portal stating that transaction of Rs.10,650/- dated 09.07.2019 is successful rendered to the customer and copy of the same was sent to the complainant. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

12               We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record available on file. Our point-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-

FINDINGS

                                    POINT NO.1

13                Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, and also documents placed on record Ex. R1 to Ex.R5, this Commission is of the view that complainant being father of Twinkle had deposited the admission fee of Rs.10,650/- on 09.07.2019 on the direction of OP No.1 and the said amount was withdrawn by OPs No.2 and 3 from the account of complainant but was never transferred in favour of OP No.1. The perusal of Ex.C1 shows that the amount was deducted by OP No.1 through Axis Bank i.e. OP No.3. It is also evident that the deducted amount was never paid in the account of OP No.1 and again complainant was directed to deposit the admission fee Rs.10,650/- which was deposited by the complainant on 21.12.2019. Meaning thereby that the admission fee was paid twice by the complainant. Although OP No.3 had deposited the amount Rs.10,650/- in favour of complainant as the first transaction was not proved to be successful on the account of respondent No.1 but after perusal of record, it is admitted by the Ops that amount Rs.10,650/- was semester fee which was taken  and excess amount was returned by OP No.1 through his service providing bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat on 17.05.2023. Despite that, the said amount was never returned back to the complainant despite so many request and reminders, meaning thereby that the said amount was withheld by service provider bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat. Ex.R5 proves that the amount received by Ops from the complainant was kept in the Punjab National Bank branch till 17.05.2023. Excess amount received by Ops is admitted and proved and same was returned after about two and half years to the complainant which is certainly proved to be deficiency in service on  the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Ops No.1 being the Vice Chancellor and overall the head of the University was duty bound to verify the facts on the basis of complaint made by the complainant but he never look into the matter and likewise the OP No.2 and 3 being head of the account branch and head of the law department also remained negligent regarding the refund of fee of the complainant which was made twice. Thereafter, the duty was of Ops No.2 and 3 to refund the amount but perusal of record shows that the amount was never kept in the account of OP No.3 whereas being service provider it deposited the amount of fee in the branch of Punjab National Bank, Khanpur Kalan, Sonipat who later on deposited the amount in the account of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that if there was any negligence on the part of Ops, it becomes the duty of OP No.1 to conduct inquiry that on whose part this delay was done and to take action accordingly. So from all corners, it can be concluded that Ops are always negligent and found deficient in service towards the complainant and complainant is certainly entitled for receiving the interest on the amount from the date of deposit of fee till 17.05.2023. Hence, the present point which is duly proved by the complainant is hereby returned in favour of complainant.

POINT NO.2

14               So far as the Point No.2 is concerned, having glance over the detailed finding on Point No.1, the Point No.2 has become redundant because no evidence could be led at the instance of OPs that they were not deficient in their services rather the complainant has fully established that his complaint is maintainable. Hence, this point is also returned in favour of complainant and against the respondents.

FINAL ORDER

15               Having heard the rival contentions raised by both the parties and after perusing the whole record, this Commission is of the firm opinion that complaint of the complainant has merit and the same is hereby accepted partly with a direction to the respondents to pay interest on Rs.10,650/- @ 9% Per annum from the date of deposit till 17.05.2023. The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the opposite party  u/s 71 & 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and even he will be entitled to recover the above amount with interest @12 % p.a. from the date of order till its actual realization. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of above said amount to the complainant.Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.