National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Babitaa Wadhwani vs Director, Akashdeep Teachers Training ... on 5 November, 2012
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3749 OF 2012 [Against the order dated 07.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 1094 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur] Babitaa Wadhwani D/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das Wadhwani 31/62/6, Varun Path, Mansarovar Jaipur, Rajasthan Petitioner Versus Director Akashdeep Teachers Training College Agarwal Farm Jaipur, Rajasthan Respondent
Before :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person Pronounced on : 5th November, 2012 O R D E R PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. Dissatisfied with the award of Rs.15,000/- and in addition a cost of Rs.4000/- ordered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (District Forum for short), which was subsequently confirmed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission for short) on the complainants appeal;
the complainant has filed this revision petition seeking enhancement of the award/compensation to Rs.3,60,000/- and in addition another Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for legal expenses.
2. Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person. Her main contention is that she was harassed by the respondent college firstly on the pretext of conforming to a dress code and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- whereas the actual cost of the dress was only Rs.250/-. She protested against the unreasonable demand because of which she was subjected to further harassment in the form of denying her the issue of mark-sheet even after she had qualified in the examination. She further submits that the respondent put pressure on her to take back her complaints, which she had filed before the Human Right Commission. She further submits that because of the delayed supply of the mark-sheet, she was not in a position to apply for a job immediately after qualifying the examination, as a result of which she not only missed the opportunity of getting a suitable job but also in the process suffered a loss of Rs.3,60,000/-. She contends that the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the District Forum is too meager and the State Commission without considering the contentions has simply concurred with the order passed by the District Forum.
3. We have gone through the records of the case and have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in person.
Suffice it to say that the District Forum vide its detailed order has analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case and considered her contentions. In our view, the petitioner/complainant is seeking compensation only on hypothetical grounds, inasmuch as she claims that she would have got a job which would have ensured her a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. This is too remote a claim, for which compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be allowed. Thus, we do not find any merit on her submissions. Besides, this being a case of concurrent finding, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Fora below in exercise of our limited jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act.
4. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) (MEMBER) Mukesh