w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Gitika Kapoor v/s Gujranawala Guru Nanak Institute Of Management & Technology

    Revision Petition No. 2963 of 2008 in Appeal No. 1384 of 2006

    Decided On, 13 August 2008

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. KAPOOR
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Om Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text

B.K. Taimni, Member:

1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2. There is not much dispute about the basic facts which are that the petitioner/complainant, Gitika Kapoor got admission in the MBA, 1st year in August 2005 in the Institution run by the respondent/opposite party, for which the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000 on 3.8.2005 and another amount of Rs. 20,700 on 10.8.2005. It was the case of the petitioner that due to family circumstances and medical reasons, she could not attend the class for which she gave information to the opposite party and surrendered the seat. It was also her case that the seat vacated by the petitioner was filled by the respondent college by calling the candidate next in the merit below the respondent. Yet, when the deposited money was not refunded, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent/opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after perusal of material on record and through a comprehensvie order going into the merits of the case, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this revision petition before us.

3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who was assisted by the father of the complainant. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of material on record, there is no disputing the fact that the first letter sent by the petitioner, with regard to the surrender of seat, is dated 10.11.2005 and next letter is dated 5.12.2005 followed by other letters for refund of amount thereafter. For the period between 10.8.2005 and 10.11.2005, there is no material on record through which the petitioner could prove that they had informed the opposite party about the surrender of the seat. As far as the allegation with regard to filling-in the seat, vacated by the petitioner, is concerned, it was only stated before us that the seat was filled in by a boy who told them so. But this has not been the case before the lower Fora. Neither the name of the boy who stepped in to fill the vacant seat, nor is there any evidence by way of affidavit, or any other document filed by the petitioner to support his contention. This was all the more necessary, for the simple reason, that while in the complaint the petitioner has stated that the surrender seat was filled-in by some other person by the opposite party, while it was denied by the opposite party in the written version. The onus of proof was clearly on the petitioner to prove that the seat was filled in. In these circumstances, when non-attending classes for three months by the admitted student, i.e., the petitioner, and surrendering the seat some time in mid-course, asking for refund of money cannot be said to be right thing to do in the case of educational institution who have limited vacancies and, as per the unrebutted statement of the respond

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ent/opposite party, that the seat remained vacant in that year. 4. In the aforementioned circumstances, no deficiency in service could be fastened on the respondent/opposite party as rightly held by the State Commission, in view of which we see no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.
O R