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



Sh. Abhinav Punia v/s Jetking Computer Hardware & Networking Institute Through Director Sh. Mayank Chauhan Near Goyal Motors, Haridwar & Others

    First Appeal No. 149 of 2013

    Decided On, 12 April 2016

    At, Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. D.K. TYAGI
    By, H.J.S.
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. VEENA SHARMA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Gaurav Verma, Learned Counsel. For the Respondents: None.



Judgment Text

D.K. Tyagi, Member

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 137 of 2012. By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 and has directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant, within one month from the date of order.

2. Briefly stated the fact of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had taken admission in the Jetking Computer Hardware and Networking Institute, Haridwar-opposite party No. 1 on 24.09.2009 and deposited Rs. 17,097/- vide receipt No. 004237 and Rs. 1,103/- vide receipt No. 004238 on the same day. The complainant also deposited Rs. 15,773 on 26.10.2009 vide receipt No. 004312 and Rs. 15,773/- on 25.11.2009 vide receipt No. 004383, in total Rs. 49,746/- in the opposite party No. 1-Institute. The opposite party No. 1-Institute was closed before completion of the course. When the complainant asked the reason why did the institute closed, then it was informed that now further course will be completed in the Roorkee Branch of the institute. The complainant time and again asked about the closure of the institute, the opposite party No. 1 through a letter dated 13.10.2010 apprised the complainant, by showing this letter in Roorkee Branch of the institute, the course will be completed there at Roorkee Branch. On the direction of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant went to Roorkee Branch of the institute, but they refused for the completion of the course and also informed the complainant that as the complainant had taken admission in Jetking Computer Hardware and Networking Institute, Haridwar, then this course will be completed there, because Roorkee Branch has never received any fee for the course from the complainant. The complainant became shocked. He contacted Sh. Mayank Chauhan, Director of the Institute, who is also opposite party No. 3 of this consumer complaint. Sh. Mayank Chauhan assured the complainant that he will refund the entire fees amount to the complainant up to 31.12.2011, but the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 have not paid fees amount to the complainant so far. The act of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has suffered mental agony and economic loss by the conduct of opposite party Nos. 1 and 3. The act of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 also comes under unfair trade practise. The cause of action arose on 05.04.2012, when the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 have not paid the entire amount of fees, as assured by them to the complainant.

3. The District Forum, Haridwar issued notices to the opposite parties. Service of notices was found deemed sufficient against the opposite parties, but neither the opposite parties appeared before the District Forum nor filed written statement before the District Forum, therefore, on 17.01.2013 the District Forum has passed an order to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite parties.

4. The District Forum on hearing the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, passed an impugned order dated 06.05.2013 in the above terms. Not satisfied with the said order, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation.

5. We have heard Sh. Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the entire record of the District Forum and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient service upon them.

6. Appellant-complainant has filed an affidavit in evidence (paper Nos. 15/1 to 15/2 on the District Forum’s record) along with original receipt dated 24.09.2009 for a sum of Rs. 17,097/-, receipt dated 24.09.2009 for a sum of Rs. 1,103/-, receipt dated 26.10.2009 for a sum of Rs. 15,773/- and receipt dated 25.11.2009 for a sum of Rs. 15,773/- (paper Nos. 16/2 to 16/3 on the District Forum’s record). The respondents neither appeared before the District Forum nor filed any written statement, despite holding service deemed sufficient on the respondents-opposite parties. The respondents have also neither appeared before this Commission after sufficient service, nor their counsel appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal. One Sh. V.K. Srivastava, Advocate had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Sh. Mayank Chauhan, one of the respondents, but he also not appeared before this Commission at the time of oral submissions. The appellant has proved his case by deposing in the affidavit filed before the District Forum. This affidavit has not been controverted by the respondents before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. The receipts filed by the appellant before the District Forum at paper No. 16/2 to 16/3 also indicates that the appellant-complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs. 49,746/- in the office of respondent No. 1. A letter dated 13.10.2010 of Sh. Mayank Chauhan, Director of Jetking Computer Hardware and Networking Institute-respondent No. 1 (paper No. 7/6 on the District Forum’s record) also proves that he had written this letter to Jetking Computer Hardware and Networking Institute, Branch Roorkee for allowing the appellant-Sh. Abhinav Punia and one another Dhananjai Kumar Dhiman, to permit them to appear in the examination of Module-II Paper, but Roorkee Branch of respondent No. 1 did not allow the appellant to appear in the examination. As the evidence of the appellant has not been controverted by adducing any evidence by affidavit by the respondents, therefore, impugned order passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity. We, therefore, are in a view that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. So far enhancement of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the impugned order be modified regarding the enhancement of compensation. The District Forum has directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3-respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay Rs. 49,746/-, as the fees deposited by the appellant as well as Rs. 5,254/- for damages, a total sum of Rs. 55,000/-, which were awarded in favour of the appellan

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t-complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this amount should be enhanced from Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-, therefore, impugned judgment and order of the District Forum is modified and respondents-opposite parties are directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the appellant-complainant within 30 days from the date or order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is modified and the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the appellant-complainant within 30 days from the date of order. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
O R