Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. COL.& Anr. vs Geetika Khare

Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. Col. & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Geetika Khare ...Respondent

O R D E R

Leave granted.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi, has by the order impugned in these appeals upheld an

ex parte order passed by the State Commission directing

refund of a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- to the respondent with

interest @ 12% p.a. but reduced the amount of compensation

awarded to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only as against

Rs.6,15,000/- awarded by the State Commission.

The facts giving rise to the appeals have been set

out in the orders passed by the State Commission and that

passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi. We need not, therefore, repeat the

same here again. Suffice it to say that the respondent had

filed a complaint against the appellant herein alleging

deficiency in service and seeking not only refund of

Rs.5,15,000/- paid by her towards fee but also compensation

for the loss of an academic year and mental harassment etc.

The respondent's case as set out in the complaint was that

she had secured admission to a BDS college established and

run by the appellant but had to withdraw from the same on

account of lack of recognition of the said college and also

other deficiencies, which not only caused inconvenience and

mental harassment but also resulted in the loss of an

academic year. The State Commission passed an ex parte order

on 25th March, 2004 granting the following reliefs to the

respondent:

"In the result the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The compensations claimed are hereby decreed. The opposite parties 01 and 02 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,15,000/- with 24% interest with effect from 11-08-1998 till the date of payment. The opposite parties 01 and 02 are further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for spoiling the good academic years of the complainant with another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and torture. The complainant is entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/- only."

Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant appealed

to the National Commission which appeal has been partly

allowed by the latter reducing the amount of compensation

payable to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. A reading of

the order passed by the National Commission shows that

during the pendency of the appeal before it the appellant

had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,15,000/-

received by it towards fee from the respondent with interest

@ 9% w.e.f. 31st July, 2000, and the respondent given

liberty to withdraw the same. It is not in dispute that the

said amount was deposited by the appellant and has been

disbursed to the respondent. The only question that remains

is whether any further amount is payable to the respondent,

in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is argued on behalf of the appellant that order

passed by the State Commission was an ex parte order and

that there was no evidence whatsoever on record to suggest

that the respondent had suffered any prejudice or

inconvenience on account of her having taken admission in

the dental college of the appellant. It is also pointed out

that the father of the respondent had in terms of his letter

dated 30th July, 2000 withdrawn the respondent from the

college because of his own problems. This is evident from a

reading of the letter, relevant portion whereof is

hereunder:

"Sir, I am herewith informing that I am withdrawing my daughter Ku. Geetika Khare from 1st Professional B.D.S. Course because of my own problems and for her admission in other college."

It was contended that although the rules and

regulations governing the admission of students to B.D.S.

course did not permit the candidate to seek refund in the

above circumstances the amount of fee paid to the college

together with interest @ 12% and been deposited by the

appellant and withdrawn by the respondent.

On behalf of the respondent, it was on the other

hand, contended that the commission was justified in holding

that there was a deficiency in the service provided by the

appellant which finding did not call for any interference

from this Court.

Having carefully considered the rival submissions

made at the bar and the material placed on record we are of

the opinion that refund of the amount of fee deposited by

the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f 31st July,

2000 till the date of payment meets the ends of justice.

Since the said amount has already been paid to the

respondent, we see no reason to award any further amount to

the respondent. We accordingly allow these appeals and

direct that the claim made by the respondent in her

complaint filed before the State Commission shall stand

settled with the payment of Rs.5,15,000/- with interest @

12% already received by the respondent. The directions

issued by the State Commission and modified by the National

Commission for payment of further amount of compensation

fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- by the National Commission shall

accordingly stand set aside. No costs.

..........................................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

...........................................J. (T.S. THAKUR) New Delhi July 9, 2010