Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/731

AAKASH KACHOLIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHISHT SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 23.06.2015 passed in C.C. No. 1082/2013 by the District Forum, Indore)  

 

AKASH KACHOLIYA.                                                              …             APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

VISISHTHA SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT                          …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

Counsel for parties:

         

           None present for the appellant.

 

                                                O R D E R

                                    (Passed on 14.07.2016)

 

          The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

        

           None appeared for the appellant since the date of filing of appeal i.e. on 13.08.2015, 08.09.2015, 30.10.2015, 14.12.2015, 27.01.2016 and 04.05.2016.  Seven times SPCs vide dispatch no. 3001 dated 14.07.2015, 3813 dated 17.08.2015, 3484 dated 14.09.2015, 5418 dated 31.10.2015, 357 dated 28.01.2016, 1333 dated 30.03.2016 and 2042 dated 06.05.2016 were issued to appellant to remain present but none appeared for the appellant.   However, we have considered the appeal on merits.

2.                     This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in CC No.1082/2013.

3.                     In brief, the case of the appellant is that he took admission in the respondent college in BCA but the respondent institution did not provide the facilities as mentioned in the brochure.  Bus facility was also not proper.  Faculty was not good.  He therefore filed a complaint against the respondent institution alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation and to provide original TC, original marksheets of

 

-2-

first and second semester.  The opposite party/respondent institution resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint is time barred.  The complainant during his studies in the institution for two years never complained to any officer.  The facilities as promised in brochure were provided to the complainant. The complainant never came to collect TC and marksheets.  Fees Rs.30,000/- for one year is still due against him. The complainant mostly remained absent from the classes/lectures.  Since the complainant was not regular in attending the classes and as per university norms TC can only be granted after completion of at least one year therefore, TC was not granted in mid-session. The opposite party/respondent therefore praysed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     The District Forum vide impugned order parlty allowed the complaint of the appellant and directed the respondent to provide original mark sheets of first semester and second semester. The District Forum has also directed the respondent institution to pay to complainant/appellant Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

5.                     We have perused the record and gone through the order passed by the District Forum.  The District Forum in its elaborative and descriptive order described the conditions in paragraph 11, 12 and 13 and reached to the conclusion in para 14 and while allowing the complaint ordered for payment of compensation and cost and to provide marksheets of first and second semester. We find that in the facts and situation of the case, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and granted sufficient relief to complainant.  We do not find any ground to enhance the compensation.  We therefore find that this appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage having no merits at all.