State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Principal, C.R. College Of Pharmacy And ... vs Sh. Lalit Mohan And Another on 27 February, 2013
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First
Appeal No: 95/2012
Date
of Decision: 27.02.2013.
.
1. Principal,
C.R. College of Pharmacy,
Koratagere, Tumkur District
(Karnataka).
2. Administrator,
C.R. College of Pharmacy,
Koratagere, Tumkur District
(Karnataka).
Appellants.
Versus
1. Sh. Lalit
Mohan, S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o
Village Gauna (Tikkri), P.O. Karaur via Basral,
Tehsil
Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
2. Sh. Om
Prakash, S/o Sh. Hari Ram,
R/o Village Gauna (Tikkri), P.O. Karaur via Basral,
Tehsil
Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
Respondents.
...
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the
Appellants: Mr. Giriraj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Prem Lata Negi, Advocate vice
Mr.
S.D. Gill, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, filed against them by respondents Lalit Mohan and Om Prakash, has been allowed and they have been ordered to refund the amount of `1,53,720/, allegedly charged by them from the respondents, on account of fees and other expenses for Pharmacy Diploma Course of two years duration, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and also to pay `10,000/- as punitive compensation and `5,000/- on account of costs.
2. Respondents filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that for the session 2002-04 respondent Lalit Mohan was charged a sum of `1,53,720/- and the money was paid by his father Om Prakash, respondent No.2. It was pleaded that at the end of the session, Lalit Mohan was deputed to undergo practical training at C.H.C., Jawalamukhi, but the diploma in respect of the pharmacy course was not issued. It was pleaded that respondents visited the institution of the appellants several times and also served a legal notice, but the appellants did not issue the diploma.
With these allegations, respondents approached the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellants to refund the amount of `1,53,720/- with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Appellants sent a reply by post, in which they denied that the respondents had paid the money, as alleged in the complaint. It was stated that the appellants became the owner of the institution only in December, 2004 after the completion of the alleged course and prior to that some other trust was the owner of the institution and the liability, if any, was of that trust. The names and particulars of the trustees/functionaries of the previous trust were indicated in the reply and it was stated that they were a necessary party to the complaint.
4. Appellants having not put in appearance, were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte by the learned District Forum. Respondents adduced ex-parte evidence. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund the money with interest and also to pay punitive compensation and costs, as aforesaid.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Not only that there is no evidence but also there is no averment to the effect that respondent Lalit Mohan had attended the classes, appeared in the examination and passed the examination. Averments made are that money was paid through four bank drafts, one for `5,000/-, two for `50,000/- each and one for `40,000/-, and that at the end of the session respondent Lalit Mohan was required to undergo practical training at C.H.C., Jawalamukhi. In the affidavit of respondent Lalit Mohan also, there is no mention of his having attended the classes, appearing in the examination and passing the examination.
7. In the absence of pleadings and evidence that Lalit Mohan had attended the classes, taken the examination and passed that examination, it cannot be said that he is entitled to issuance of a diploma certifying that he has passed the pharmacy examination.
8. Above stated position apart, respondents have not adduced any evidence showing that they had paid any money through bank drafts to the appellants. They themselves tendered in evidence two certificates, Annexures CW1 & CW2, which purport to be issued by Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India.
9. Annexure CW1 issued by Punjab National Bank is to the effect that a bank draft for `5,000/- was purchased by respondent Lalit Mohan and the money was payable to Principal, Chenni Garmaiah College of Pharmacy, Koratagere. Name of the college of the appellants is C.R. College of Pharmacy and not Chenni Garmaiah College of Pharmacy.
10. Certificate, Annexure CW2, issued by State Bank of India is to the effect that three drafts, two for `50,000/- each and one for `40,000/-, had been purchased from their branch at Nadaun, District Hamirpur, and the money was payable to C.R. College of Pharmacy, Koratagere, i.e. the college of appellants, but the three bank drafts were purchased not by the respondents, as claimed by them, but by different persons. One draft for `50,000/- was purchased on 14.02.2003 by Mrs. Kailash Kumari, R/o Village Sulyal, P.O. Karana. Second draft for `50,000/- was purchased on 10.10.2003 by Mr. Om Prakash, resident of Vill. Naghoon, P.O. Ghaloon. Even this second draft for `50,000/- does not stand connected with respondent Om Prakash because he is resident of a different village and different post office. His village is Gauna (Tikkri) and the Post Office Karaur, as is clear from the address given in the title of the complaint. The third draft for `40,000/-
was purchased by some Hans Raj of village Naghoon, P.O. Jaleri.
11. As a result of the above stated position, we allow the present appeal, set aside impugned order dated 18.11.2011 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur and dismiss the complaint.
12. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member February 27, 2013.
*DC Dhiman* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?