National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Mohd. Iqbal vs Chairman/Manager, B.M. Patil, Medical ... on 10 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ93(NC)
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. The two complainants graduate in medicine (MBBS) were denied admission to PG course in the opposite parties' college though they had paid Rs. 2.50 lakhs each towards initial payment of fees and when they were asked to pay more and on their expressing difficulty they were denied admission. However, it is the stand of the opposite parties that the complainants earlier knocked the doors of the MRTP Commission for which they obtained interim order reserving two seats in P.G. course. That order was, however, challenged by the opposite parties in the High Court of Karnataka which set aside the order of the MRTP Commission holding that it had no jurisdiction in regard to education.
2. Against that order of the Karnataka High Court complainants went in appeal to the Supreme Court. However, special leave petition was withdrawn by them with liberty to file a petition before an Appropriate Authority for compensation and other reliefs.
3. This complaint was filed on 30.3.1999 when admission in PG course was sought in 1996- Compensation which the complainants claim is as under :
4. On the face of it claims appears to be inflated enormously. However, on 28th July, 2002 while admitting the complaint we issued limited notice on the question whether the amount deposited by the complainants should be refunded by the opposite parties.
5. When the matter was taken up today, it was submitted by Ms. Bina Madhvan that opposite parties are prepared to pay Rs. 2.50 lakhs to each of the complainants though for that earlier opposite parties had written letter to the complainants when they did not accept the amount. In these circumstances complaints are disposed of with the direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs to each of the complainants within four weeks on receipt of this order. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the complainants that original certificates had been submitted to the opposite parties and that they should be returned. Ms. Madhvan says that she will get instructions and if any original certificate(s) is/are with the opposite parties that shall be returned to the complainants.