State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baba Kundan College Of Para Medical ... vs Puneet Sharma on 13 October, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.43 of 2010
Date of institution : 27.5.2010
Date of decision : 13 .10.2010
Baba Kundan College of Para Medical Sciences through its Director, Rishi Nagar,
Ludhiana.
.......Petitioners
Versus
1. Puneet Sharma s/o Shri Roshan Lal Sharma, 160, Raman Enclave, Rishi
Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. The Punjab Technical University through its Vice Chancellor, Jalandhar.
......Respondents
Revision Petition against the order dated 3.5.2010
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the petitioners : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Shri Amit Arora, Advocate. For respondent No.2 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Puneet Sharma respondent had taken admission in the petitioner College in the course of BSC-MLT-LE for the Session 2005-2007. He had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 2.9.2005 as fee for the first semester and Rs.9,500/- on 20.2.2006 as the fee for the second semester. He had qualified two semesters.
Thereafter the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.10,500/- with the petitioners as registration fee for the third semester. This amount was to be remitted to the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar respondent No.2 (in short "the PTU"). Revision Petition No. 43 of 2010. 2
2. It was further pleaded that the amount was being charged in excess by the petitioners as the amount fixed by the PTU was Rs.14,500/-. Therefore respondent No.1 opted to migrate to Sustara Institute of Medical Science, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana (in short "the migrated Institute"). The petitioners had sent the record to the migrated Institute. The respondent attended the classes upto February 2007 in the migrated Institute.
3. It was further pleaded that the migrated Institute asked respondent No.1 to get his roll number from the petitioners which was required for eligibility to appear in the third semester. Respondent No.1 went to the petitioners. However the petitioners gave only the receipt of Rs.10,500/- dated 22.2.2007 and not the roll number. In fact the petitioners had not remitted the amount to the PTU. They had retained it with them and, therefore, they could not get the roll number of respondent No.1. As a result respondent No.1 could not appear in the third semester examination and his career was spoiled.
4. It was further pleaded that when respondent No.1 visited the office of the petitioners he was beaten and locked in the room. The petitioners also got some blank papers signed from respondent No.1 on gunpoint. On this the father of respondent No.1 had reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana in regard to this incident. He also got registered DDR with police of PS-Haibowal. In this manner, the petitioners had committed deficiency in service. As a result the career of respondent No.1 was spoiled. Therefore respondent No.1 filed the complaint against the petitioners for the refund of Rs.10,500/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was also prayed.
5. The petitioners appeared in the District Forum. They filed an application dated 4.6.2009 along with the affidavit of Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed as withdrawn as the compromise had taken place between the parties.
Revision Petition No. 43 of 2010. 3
6. Respondent No.1 produced his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW-2/A. He also produced documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.
7. On the other hand the petitioners produced the application Ex.RX of Subhash Chander and also produced documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.
8. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 3.5.2010.
9. Hence the petition.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petition be accepted and the impugned order dated 3.5.2010 be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 was that there was no merit in the present petition and the same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. Normally the complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not disposed of on the applications filed by the opposite party in the complaint (petitioners in this case) but the facts of this case are entirely different.
14. The admitted facts are that Puneet Sharma respondent had taken admission in the petitioner College for the course of BSC-MLT-LE for the session 2005- 2007. He had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 2.9.2005 and another sum of Rs.9,500/- on 20.2.2006 as fee for the first and second semesters. He had also deposited with the petitioners a sum of Rs.10,500/- as registration fee for the third semester which was to be sent to the PTU. It is also admitted that respondent No.1 had migrated to Sustara Institute of Medical Science, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. Respondent No.1 filed a consumer complaint (Complaint No.148 of 20.2.2009).
15. It is also admitted that Roshan Lal father of the respondent had got registered a criminal case against the Principal of the petitioners, namely, DDR No.74 dated 24.3.2008 in PS-Haibowal.
Revision Petition No. 43 of 2010. 4
16. It is also admitted that the petitioners had appeared in the District Forum and had filed the application dated 4.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) for withdrawal of the complaint by Puneet Sharma respondent no.1 alleging compromise between the parties. This application was opposed by respondent No.1 by filing the written reply (Annexure P-2) denying any compromise in the complaint while the petitioners had filed the rejoinder to that written statement (Annexure P-3).
17. It is also admitted between the parties that a compromise had taken place between them. However the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that this compromise included the compromise in the consumer complaint filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners but the version of respondent No.1 was that the compromise related only to the police matter and not to the consumer complaint.
18. After considering both the versions, the learned District Forum had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 3.5.2010.
19. The petitioners have placed on the file a photocopy of the affidavit (in Punjabi) duly sworn in by Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 on 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-4). In para 1 of this affidavit (Annexure P-4) respondent No.1 had deposed that he had a dispute with Dr. Rajiv Hora etc. for which his father Roshan Lal had got registered a case at DDR No.74 in PS-Haibowal, District Ludhiana. He had also filed a complaint in the Consumer Court, complaint No.148 of 2009 under the title "Puneet Sharma vs. Baba Kundan College of Paramedical Science etc." In para 2 of this affidavit, Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 had deposed that he had also filed many complaints to the higher officers and to the University (PTU). However in the above mentioned cases/disputes the respectable persons have got arrived a compromise between the parties. Now no grievance outstands against Dr. Rajiv Hora etc. In para 3 of the affidavit Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 had deposed that now in the above mentioned cases/disputes he does not want any proceedings and all the court cases/complaints be treated as being come Revision Petition No. 43 of 2010. 5 to an end. In para 4 of the affidavit he deposed that now there was no dispute between the parties for any grievance. In para 5 of the affidavit he had deposed that he would be bound by this statement. It would also be binding on his father. In para 6 of the affidavit he had also deposed that his father Roshan Lal had given a separate affidavit about it.
20. The petitioners have placed on the file the compromise as Annexure P-5. In this compromise deed, Roshan Lal Sharma (father of Puneet Sharma respondent) and Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 were the first party while Dr. Rajiv Hora c/o Baba Kundan College, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Dr. Rajinder Parkash and Sahil Kumar were the second party.
21. It is further mentioned in this compromise deed dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) that due to some matter between the parties, a quarrel/dispute had taken place between them. Now the respectable persons have intervened and both the parties have settled the matter. In the compromise deed it was decided that whatever FIR has been got registered by one party against the other was being taken back along with it whatever applications have been filed by one against the other, although those applications were filed in the Punjab Technical University or in the Punjab Human Rights Commission or to any other higher officers those are also taken back by the parties. It was also mentioned that whatever cases either civil or criminal have been filed are taken back. It was also mentioned that complaint No.148 of 2009 filed by Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the Consumer Court against Baba Kundan College of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Research Centre and Baba Kundan College of Paramedical Sciences, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana is also being taken back. Whatever applications have been filed to PTU were taken back and they will not take any proceedings against one or the other. This compromise deed was written with full consciousness and without any pressure. It is signed by Roshan Lal Sharma as the first party and Rajiv Kumar, Rajinder Parkash and Sahil and by one other person as the second party. It is signed by the witnesses also, namely, Revision Petition No. 43 of 2010. 6 Kulwinder Singh and Subhash Chander. It was duly attested by the Notary Public, Ludhiana on 23.4.2009.
22. The petitioners have also filed a letter dated 8.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) sent by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Urban) to the Additional Director General of Police, I.V.C.-Cum-Human Rights, Punjab, Chandigarh where the case was fixed for 18.5.2009. It was mentioned in this letter that the dispute had taken place between both the parties on 1.1.2008. Both the parties had filed complaints against each other. The case was registered at DDR No.74 dated 24.3.2008 under Section 323, 341, 325, 148 and 149 IPC in PS-Haibowal from Rajiv Hora and cross case was registered under Section 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC from Roshan Lal. The matter has been investigated. Both the parties have appeared and have filed affidavits. They have compromised the matter with each other. Now none of the parties want any action being taken on their applications and, therefore, the complaint be filed.
23. In the affidavit given by Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 (Annexure P-4) and in the compromise deed signed by his father Roshan Lal (Annexure P-5) it is specifically mentioned that consumer complaint No.148 of 2009 filed by Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 against the petitioners along with other cases was withdrawn by him as compromised. After reading both these documents there remains no doubt in our mind that respondent No.1 has settled the matter with the petitioners.
24. Although respondent No.1 alleges that his signatures were obtained forcibly on blank papers by the petitioners and no such compromise had taken place between the parties but this contention of respondent No.1 cannot be accepted when the father of respondent No.1 Roshan Lal has specifically stated in the compromise dated 23.4.2009 that even the consumer complaint is withdrawn in the compromise. This compromise deed was duly attested by the Notary Public. Moreover the letter dated 8.5.2009 Annexure P-6 also clearly reveals that the parties had settled the matter among themselves. The settlement of the consumer Revision Petition No. 43 of 2010. 7 complaint is specifically mentioned in the affidavit of Puneet Sharma (Annexure P-4). Therefore it cannot be believed that this affidavit of Puneet Sharma respondent No.1 was prepared from a blank paper which was allegedly got signed from him forcibly.
25. In view of the discussion held above, we accept this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 3.5.2010 and held that the parties had compromised the matter. As a result the complaint filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners stands disposed of as withdrawn.
26. The arguments in this case were heard on 7.10.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
October 13 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER