State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Tara College on 18 April, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.566 of 2011
Date of institution: 29.03.2011
Date of decision : 18.04.2011
Deepak Kumar son of Amrit Pal son of Om Parkash resident of Maur Mandi,
Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda through his special attorney Amrit Pal
son of Om Parkash resident of Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District
Bathinda.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Tara College of Information Technology (Tara Computer Centre), Gali
Geeta Wali, Near Dr.Jagdish resident of Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi
Sabo, Bathinda.
2. Chairman, Rashtriya Saksharta Mission, I.T. Programme, SS Tower,
402/71, Radio Colony, Main Road, Dhirpur near Kali Mandir, D-9, Delhi -
110009.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 04.02.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda .
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The appellant had taken the admission in the college of respondent No.1 on 5.5.2009 for the course of BPA (Basic Prgramming Application) after reading the advertisement published by respondent No.1 in the month of April, 2009. It was also advertised that the college of respondent No.1 was duly affiliated with respondent No.2. The course was to be completed in 4 trimester and fee for the total course was Rs.1915/-. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as First Appeal No.566 of 2011 2 advance on 5.5.2009 itself. The remaining amount of Rs.915/- was payable in the mid of the course.
2. It was further pleaded by the appellant that he was given only 2 books out of 4 books exclusively published by respondent No.2. The appellant had attended the classes for 40-45 days in the premises of respondent No.1. Since the education given by respondent No.1 was not according to the course. Since the appellant was told by the Principal of respondent No.1 not to attend the classes, therefore, the appellant had come to respondent No.1 to know the reasons. The appellant also asked respondent No.1 to refund the fee but to no effect. The appellant sent intimation to respondent No.2 by registered post on 11.7.2009 but in vain. Hence, the complaint.
3. Respondent No.1 filed the written reply. The factual position was admitted but it was pleaded that during this period of 40-45 days, the appellant had not behaved properly and he used to disturb and tease the girl students of his class. Due to this reason, the girl students had complained against the appellant to respondent No.1. Accordingly, the instructor changed the class timings of the appellant but the appellant insisted to attend the classes at the same time with other girl students. When the appellant was not permitted to do so, he stopped coming to attend the classes. It was admitted that respondent No.1 had told the appellant on phone and had sent messages to him through other students asking him to attend the class according to new timings but the appellant failed to do so and he was adamant in his attitude. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
5. Respondent No.1 even made a statement in the learned District Forum on 7.10.2010 that he was ready to refund the amount of Rs.1000/- to the appellant but the appellant refused to accept the offer. Hence, the complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 4.2.2011.
6. Hence, this appeal.
First Appeal No.566 of 2011 3
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that by making false allegations, the reputation of the appellant has been spoiled by respondent No.1. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 4.2.2011 be dismissed.
8. This submission has been considered.
9. The admitted facts are that the appellant had taken the admission in BPA course on 5.5.2009 in the college of respondent No.1. It was also admitted that out of the total fee of the full course of Rs.1915/-, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- on 5.5.2009. It is also not denied that the appellant had attended the classes for 40-45 days.
10. Respondent No.1 has taken the plea that the appellant had started teasing the girl students. Accordingly, on receipt of the complaint from the girls, the timings of the appellant were changed but the appellant had not accepted the change in timings.
11. In support of his version, the appellant had filed the affidavits of Rakesh Kumar Ex.C11 and of Satish Kumar Ex.C12 that the appellant was a sincere student and had good moral character but respondent No.1 had filed the affidavits of two girl students namely Malkiat Kaur as Ex.R3 and affidavit of Dimple Bagga as Ex.R4 in which they specifically deposed that the behaviour of Deepak Kumar was not proper towards the students, instructor and other staff members of the college and for that reason, the school timing of the appellant were changed. If these facts had not been correct, respondent No.1 would not have offered the refund of Rs.1000/- to the appellant by making the statement in the learned District Forum on 7.10.2010.
12. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.4.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.566 of 2011 4
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER April 18, 2011.
Paritosh