State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionGgdsd vs Harsimran Singh on 31 May, 2013STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
  
 
 
 
 

 
 







 



 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

 

U.T.,   CHANDIGARH 

 

  

 

  

 
   
   
   

First
  Appeal No. 
  
   
   

: 
  
   
   

209 of
  2013 
  
 
  
   
   

Date of Institution 
  
   
   

: 
  
   
   

23.05.2013 
  
 
  
   
   

Date of Decision 
  
   
   

: 
  
   
   

31.05.2013 
  
 


 

  

 

  

 

 Goswami  Ganesh
 Dutta  Sanatan
 Dharam  College,
Sector 32,   Chandigarh
through its Principal.  

 

Appellant/Opposite Party No.1. 

 Versus 

 

  

 

Mr. Harsimran Singh Bedi, Aged
about 21 years, son of Kanwardeep Singh, R/o # 1602, Phase-10, Sector 64,
Mohali,  Punjab, through Attorney.  

 

 .Respondent/Complainant. 

 

  

 

  

 

Appeal underSection 15of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

  

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. 

 

 SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.Argued by: Sh. Rohit Dheer,
Advocate for the appellant.PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.04.2013
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh
(hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), passed in Consumer
Complaint No.632 of 2012 vide which, it accepted the complaint of the
complainant against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and directed them, as under: -14] In view
of the above discussion as well as settled position of law, we are of the
opinion that the complaint must succeed.The same is accordingly allowed.The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to jointly & severally refund the
fee of the complainant i.e. Rs.30,982/-, after making deduction of processing
fee of not more than Rs.1000/- and the fee for the months of July to Sept.,
2010 i.e. the date/month on which refund was sought by the complainant vide
Ann.C-3, along with interest @9% p.a. from 01.10.2010 till the date of order
i.e. 12.4.2013. The OPs are also
directed to jointly & severally pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing
mental tension and physical harassment to the complainants, apart from paying
litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.This order be complied with by the
OPs No.1 & 2 jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the
date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay an
interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount including compensation amount,
from the date of order i.e. 10.4.2013 till its actual payment, besides paying
litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.However, the
complaint qua OPs No.3 to 5 stands dismissed.2.  The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for
admission in Goswami Ganesha Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Sector 32-C,
Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as College)  Opposite Party No.1, in
Bachelor of Computer Application Part-1, for the Session 2010-11 by submitting
the prescribed Format No.6400 for the same. The complainant paid fees of Rs.30,982/-
vide receipt dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure C-2). It was stated that the classes for
the course study had not started and in the meantime, the complainant applied
for admission in Panjab Technical University, Jalandhar for engineering course and
he was allotted a seat in Rayat Bahra Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Mohali District where he joined on 27.9.2010. Thereafter, the complainant
applied for the refund of fees of Rs.30,982/- vide application dated 27.9.2010
but the Principal was not available. It was further stated that the complainant
again visited the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount on 30.9.2010 and
delivered letter (Annexure C-3), but the matter was put off by the Opposite
Parties, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that a notice dated
13.9.2012 was sent to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-4), but to no avail. It
was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to
deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, a complaint underSection 12of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as
the Act only), for directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.30,982/-
alongwith interest @24% per annum, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment
and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation, was filed.3.  Opposite
Parties No.1 and 2, in their written version, admitted the fact as regards admission
of the complainant in Opposite Party No.1 College and receipt of fees of Rs.30,982/-.
It was stated that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of fee, as
per rules & regulations mentioned in the college prospectus as well as UGC
guidelines in this regard. It was further stated that no document in support of
admission of the complainant to the alleged B. Tech Four Year Course in Rayat
Bahra Institute of Engineering and Technology was produced by the complainant. The
remaining allegations were denied. It was pleaded that there was neither any
deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and
2, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.4. Opposite
Parties No.3 and 4 did not appear before the District Forum, despite service
and accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.12.2012.5. Opposite
Party No.5 in its written version, took up an objection that the complainant was
not a consumer qua it and the complaint was barred by time. It was stated that there
was no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.5 and
no amount of money/consideration was paid by him to it, and as such no services
were rendered by it. It was further stated that the entire complaint and the annexures/documents
were not signed or authenticated by the complainant; and even the affidavit filed
by him, in support of alleged facts and circumstances of the case, was not
signed by him.6. The
parties led evidence, in support of their case.7.  After hearing the Counsel for the
parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the
District Forum, accepted the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 only,
in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.8. Feeling
aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party
No.1.9. We
have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite party No.1, at the
preliminary stage, and, have carefully perused the record of the District
Forum.10. The
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum erred in passing
the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 as the complainant never appeared, deposed
or led any evidence in support of his claim. It was further submitted that even
the Consumer Complaint and the affidavit in support of the said complaint were
not singed by Sh. Harsimran Singh Bedi complainant. It was further submitted
that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant
approached the District Forum by suppressing and circumventing the material
facts in an arbitrary and illegal manner and there is no legal document to show
the competence of the alleged attorney to file the complaint. It was also submitted
that Annexure C-6/Annexure A-2 termed as Power of Attorney without any
verification or attestation, being the alleged photocopy of printout of an email attachment is prima facie a fake,
forged, illegitimate, illegal and unconstitutional document and thus
inadmissible in the eye of law. It was further submitted that the complaint was
not maintainable in the present form as Sh. Kanwardeep Singh Bedi is not the
consumer of the Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that even the
affidavit had not been signed by the complainant himself. The appellant placed
reliance onMahendra Pratap Singh Vs.
Padam Kumari Devi, AIR 1993 all 143, that a power of attorney holder
cannot give evidence on behalf of his principal.It was pleaded that inJanki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank
Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439, it was held that power of attorney did not have
personal knowledge of the matter, and, therefore, he could neither depose on
his personal knowledge nor could he be cross-examined on those facts. It was
further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate that the complaint
filed by the complainant was not maintainable in view ofOrder III Rule 1
C.P.C. The Attorney Sh. Kanwardeep Singh Bedi was not the authorized agent of
the Principal. It was also submitted that the complainant did not approach the
District Forum with clean hands, and suppressed true facts from the District
Forum. It was further submitted that Annexure C-3 annexed with the complaint was
falsely created and concocted document, which showed that the complainant
belonged to economically weaker section but Annexure C-6, showed that Sh.
Harsimran Singh Bedi was sent for further studies to   Canada.It was further submitted
that the Honble Apex Court in caseS.
P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & others, 1993 Supp 3 SCR 422 observed
that a person, whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the
Court. He can be summarily thrown out of the court at any stage of the litigation.
It was further submitted that the complainant did not have any locus-standi to
file the complaint. The District Forum overlooked that the complaint was purely
barred by limitation in view ofSection 24Aof the Act. It was further
submitted that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient in rendering service
nor indulged into unfair trade practice. According to the appellant, the
District Forum erred and failed to appreciate that the complainant was not
entitled to refund of fees as per the settled Rules and Regulations mentioned
in the College prospectus. It was further submitted that the case of the
complainant did not fall under the relevant UGC guidelines issued vide public
notice bearing Memo No.F.No.1-3/2007(CPP-II). It was further submitted that the
Ministry of Human Resources & Development and UGC, in the public interest,
decided that institutions and Universities shall maintain a waiting list of
students/candidates and in the event of the student/candidate withdrawing,
before the start of the course, the wait listed candidate should be given
admission against the vacant seat. It was further submitted that as per page
No.11 of College prospectus for the Academic Session 2011-2012, last date of
admission with late fee with permission of the Vice Chancellor was 31.08.2010
whereas, the complainant opted to withdraw from the College vide letter dated
27.09.2010. It was further submitted that the District Forum erred and failed
to appreciate that no refund of fee was permissible in view of the principle of
estoppel. It was further submitted that no student could be admitted to the
College after 31.08.2010 and therefore, the seat vacated could not be filled.
It was further submitted that the District Forum fell in grave error and passed
the impugned order. It was further submitted that the complainant gave a
declaration that he had would abide by the Rules and Regulations of the College
and Panjab University. The complainant had also declared that he was joining
the College with express permission of his parents. It was further submitted
that the complainant had also declared that if he withdrew from the College, he
would not claim the refund. It was further submitted that the impugned order,
passed by the District Forum, being unsustainable, in the eye of law, be set
aside.11. The fact that the complainant/respondent
took admission in Bachelor of Computer Application (Part I) during the Session
2010-2011 in the college of Opposite Party and paid an amount of Rs.30,982/- as
fees vide Receipt dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure C-2) is not in dispute. It is also in evidence that the complainant
was allotted a seat in Rayat Bahra Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Mohali District where he joined on 27.9.2010. The complainant applied for
refund of fees of Rs.30,982/- vide letter dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure C-3)
addressed to the Principal, GGDSD College, Chandigarh, which was duly
acknowledged on 30.09.2010 and thereafter, he sent letter dated 13.9.2012
(Annexure C-4) through registered post (Annexure C-5). The complaint before the
District Forum was filed on 28.09.2012. Therefore, the complaint was well
within the period of limitation as per the provisions ofSection 24(A)of the Act.
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being without merit
must fail and the same stands rejected.12. As regards the argument of the Counsel
for the appellant that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the
provisions ofOrder III Rule 1 of C.P.C, the Honble Apex Court inSavita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart
Institute, IV(2004) CPJ 40 (SC) observed that the provisionsof the
Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable, to a limited extent, to the
proceedings before the Consumer Fora. The Honble Supreme Court further
observed as under:The
Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide better protection in the interest
of the Consumers and not to short-circuit the matter or to defeat the claim on
technical grounds.InState of
Karnataka Vs.  Vishwabharathi
House Building Coop. Society and Others, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), it was
held by the Honble Apex Court that the C. P. Act is a comprehensive and
self-contained piece of legislation and its object is to decide consumers
complaints expeditiously, via summary procedure. It is settled that the
Consumer Foras act under a benevolent law where the claims of the Consumers are
not to be brushed aside, on frivolous grounds. The complaint, thus, filed by
the complainant, through his father, who was appointed by him as his attorney
was maintainable. The father of the complainant being well versed with the
facts of the case was competent to file affidavit, in support of the averments,
contained in the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant,
thus, being without merit must fail and stands rejected.13. Though as per the contents of the
prospectus, the last date of admission was 31.08.2012, yet as rightly observed
by the District Forum, the appellant did not produce any record to show that
the seat vacated by the complainant was not filled. The appellant/Opposite
Party, also did not reply to the communications of the complainant. The case of
the complainant was squarely covered under the guidelines of UGC (Annexure R-3), which stipulate that Should
a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling
vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the
Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deduction of
monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent wherever applicable. The fee of
Rs.30,982/- deposited by the complainant was apparently for the entire Academic
Session starting from 2nd July 2010 to 3rd April 2011,
followed by the University Examination from 4th April 2011,
vacations etc. up to 8th July 2011 (as per the College calendar depicted
in the prospectus at Pages 51 and 52 of the District Forum file). The
complainant, for the first time, informed Opposite Party No.1, to discontinue
his studies on 27.9.2010, which is duly acknowledged in the office of Opposite
Party No.1 on 30.09.2010. As the fees was taken for the entire year and the
Opposite Party did not adduce any evidence that the seat vacated by the
complainant was not filled, the fees for the period July 2010 to September 2010
i.e. for three months, was deductible. Therefore, out of total fee of
Rs.30,982/-, after deducting fee for three months and processing fee of
Rs.1,000/-, the balance fee was required to be refunded to the complainant,
which the District Forum rightly ordered vide the impugned order. By not
refunding the fees, as indicated above, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1,
indulged into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, in
this regard, being correct are affirmed.14.  No other point, was urged, by the Counsel
for the parties.15. For
the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party
No.1, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The
impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.16. Certified
Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.17. The
file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.Pronounced.31st May
2013.Sd/-[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] 

 

PRESIDENT 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

Sd/-[DEV RAJ] 

 

MEMBER 

 Ad 

 



 STATE
COMMISSION 

 

(First Appeal No.209
of 2013) 

 

  

 

Argued by:Sh. Rohit Dheer,
Advocate for the appellant.Dated the 31st
day of May, 2013.ORDER 

 

  

 

 Vide our detailed
order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite
Party No.1, has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to
costs.(DEV RAJ) 
   

MEMBER  
  
   
   

(JUSTICE SHAM
  SUNDER (RETD.)) 
   PRESIDENT 
  
 


 

  

 

Ad