State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.S. Verma vs M/S Iipm on 12 June, 2024
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
ORDER SHEET
APPEAL NO. 1470/2014
J.S. VERMA
VS.
M/S IIPM AND OTHERS.
12.6.2024 Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for
appellant.
None for respondents.
This appeal by the appellant/complainant is directed against the order dated 29.5.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short 'District Commission') in complaint case No. 669/2012, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant's son Rohit Verma had took admission in UG-C 3 years programme with the respondents/opposite parties No.1 and 2-Institution and deposited an amount of Rs.3,48,360/- for the first year. When the complainant approached the opposite party No.3-Bank for further instalment of loan, it was refused, on the ground that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are not affiliated/approved by any University or Statutory body. The complainant, therefore requested for refund of fee deposited by him, which was rejected by the said opposite parties. Aggrieved by the said rejection the complainant has filed the said complaint before the District Commission which was partly allowed with direction to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to refund Rs.34,040/- to complainant with Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
: 2 :3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the respondents No. 1 and 2 misrepresented the facts to obtain admission in their institution. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to receive back full fee paid for 2nd semester i.e. Rs.1,56,660/- and the District Commission has not appreciated the material on record and has in passing the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant. Perused the record.
5. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the District Commission has passed a detailed speaking order after appreciating all the evidence on record, which does not call for any interference.
6. Though this matter pertains to education but since the respondents have not come in appeal against impugned order, questioning the maintainability of complaint before the District Commission, we are not considering the said point in the appeal, which is preferred by the complainant.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.K. TIWARI) (DR. SRIKANT PANDEY)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy