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

VINIT v/s The Institute of Computer Accountants

    Revision Petition No. 1016 of 2013
    Decided On, 11 January 2016
    At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appearing Parties: ----.

Judgment Text
Veena Birbal, President

1. In this appeal challenge is made to the order dated 20.3.13 by which consumer complaint No.488/12 has been allowed and directions have been given to the respondent herein i.e. OP before the District Forum to refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant.

2. The background of the case is that the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District forum had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act alleging therein that he had taken admission with respondent/OP institute on 31.7.09 for 15 months course under which appellant/complainant was to be provided with a CIA PLUS certificate on successful completion of the course and there was100% job guarantee with ATJ Card (any time job). He had paid Rs.33,400/- for the aforesaid course. It was assured at the time of admission that professionals like CA, CS would be provided for coaching but nothing like that happened. It was alleged that the course was for 15 months duration and 12 exams were to be conducted by the respondent/OP during the said period. It was alleged that even after passing the three years course only 4 exams were conducted and the course remained incomplete. Even proper facilities as promised were also not provided. The examinations were also postponed. The appellant had been continueing visiting the respondent/OP for three years but the course was never completed. In these circumstances appellant/complainant had filed consumer complaint for the refund of the fee of Rs.33,400/-.

3. Respondent/OP did not appear before the Ld. District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte.

4. Ld. District Forum after considering the ex-parte evidence filed by the appellant/complainant by way of affidavit directed the respondent/OP to refund sum of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant by observing that only one receipt showing Rs.20,000/- was paid by the appellant/complainant to respondent/OP and therefore ordered for refund of aforesaid amount.

5. The grievances of the appellant is that he had deposited Rs.33,400/- where as the District Forum has only ordered for refund of Rs.20,000/-. It is stated that there is evidence on record which clearly substantiate that the appellant/complainant had paid Rs.33,400/- to the respondent/OP and the Ld. District Forum had ignored the said evidence while passing the impugned order. It is contended that compensation and litigation expenses have also not been granted by the District Forum.

6. We have gone through the record of Ld. District Forum. There is a receipt dated 30.7.09 issued by the respondent/OP institute as per which the appellant/complainant had paid Rs.33,400/- to the respondent/OP for completion of course. It appears due to oversight Ld. District Forum has not considered the said receipt while passing the impugned order. As regards compensation and litigation cost, we find that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. District Forum has not awarded compensation and costs of litigation. We find no reason to upset the said finding.

7. In view of the above discussions, we partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned order to the extent of refund

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
of fee only and direct the respondent/OP to refund Rs.33,400/- to the appellant/OP instead of Rs.20,000/- 8. Appeal stands partly allowed. 9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. 10. File be consigned to Record Room.