STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH





[R.B.T. No.1537 of 2008/Appeal No.1968 of 2002]





Smt. Shashi, Proprietor/Director, E.T.&T. Computer Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

….Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Surender Kumar son of Sh. Mool Chand, R/o Near Railway Station, Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari.

… Respondent

BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.



PRESENT: Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Mool Chand, Father of respondent in person.



[R.B.T. No.1539 of 2008/Appeal No.1966 of 2002]



Smt. Shashi, Proprietor/Director, E.T.&T. Computer Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

….Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Avtar Singh son of Sh. Sumer Singh R/o Village Jhal, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari.

… Respondent

PRESENT: Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent exparte.



[R.B.T. No.1540 of 2008/Appeal No.1967 of 2002]



Smt. Shashi, Proprietor/Director, E.T.&T. Computer Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

….Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o Village Jhal, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari.

… Respondent

PRESENT: Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent exparte.





MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

1. Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of three appeals received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 29.7.2002 passed in respective complaint cases No.398 of 2001 : Sh. Surender Kumar Vs. Smt. Shashi; complaint case No.401 of 2001 : Sh. Avtar Singh Vs. Smt. Shashi and complaint case No.399 of 2001 : Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Smt. Shashi. For the just decision of these three appeals which have similar facts involving same law points, facts are being extracted from complaint case filed by Sh. Surender Kumar i.e. complaint case No.398 of 2001 as under: -

2. In short, the case of the complainant is that in August 2000, the complainant took admission with the Computer Centre run by the OP in Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Science and Technology and deposited a fee amounting to Rs.5,952/-. The complainant had been assured that the institute was a recognized institute but later on the complainant came to know that the Central Government had declared that the recognition given to E.T.&T had been withdrawn. The complainant contacted the OP in this regard and she told the complainant that the recognition was taken from the Ministry of Information and Technology. The complainant’s case, however, is that this was not true. The complainant, therefore, requested the OP to refund the amount deposited along with interest or to grant diploma recognized from the Deemed University but there was no response from the OP, therefore, the complainant had filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs.5,952/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization along with another sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and damages.

3. The OP did not appear despite service and was, therefore, proceeded against exparte vide District Forum’s order dated 15.10.2001.

4. The learned District Forum in the impugned order held the view that the documents placed on file establish that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,952/- with the OP and further the documents placed on record revealed that the OP has neither given the diploma nor refunded the amount of fee to the complainant. Thus, the learned District Forum held the view that the OP had indulged in unfair trade practice and was also deficient in providing service to the complainant and consequently, it directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs.5,952/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and further directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and damages. These directions were to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the order.

5. Aggrieved by the said order learned District Forum, the OP had filed these three appeals bearing No.1968 of 2002 (RBT No.1537 of 2008), Appeal No.1966 of 2002 (RBT No.1539) and Appeal No.1967 of 2002 (RBT No.1540) before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same have now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate appeared for the appellant Sh. Shashi in all the three appeals whereas Sh. Mool Chand, Father of the respondent appeared in Appeal No.1968 of 2002 (RBT No.1537 of 2008) and other respondents i.e. Sh. Avtar Singh in Appeal No.1966 of 2002 (RBT No.1539 of 2008) and Sh. Sanjay Kumar in Appeal No.1967 of 2002 (RBT No.1540 of 2008) were proceeded against exparte despite service.

6. Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum had wrongly held that the institute was not a recognized institute. He emphatically submitted that the institute run by the OP was a duly recognized institute and it continues to be so even till date. He further submitted that the three complainants had not been attending classes and had failed the tests and therefore, no degree could be granted to them. In this context, the learned counsel further submitted that the complainants had even earlier filed similar complaints but those had been withdrawn and this fact of having filed earlier complaints has been withheld by the complainants while filing the present complaints and the complainants have not placed on record any orders of the learned District Forum giving them the liberty to file these complaints on the similar matter, which had been earlier agitated before the learned District Forum. In this context, he further submitted that the earlier complaints had been filed on 20.1.2001 and the written statements had been filed by the OP on 24.5.2001 and subsequently, the present complaints had been filed after a period of over one year. His submission was that these are false complaints and had the complainants been genuinely aggrieved, there was no need for them to wait for one year before filing the complaints.

7. The next limb of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that in this complaint, no notice had been served on the appellant and therefore, an exparte order had been passed without hearing the version of the OP. The learned counsel also produced before the Court certain receipts of E.T.&T Corporation Limited through which he tried to explain to the Bench that the institute run by the OP was a duly recognized institute approved by the Government of India. He also produced before the Bench a press note in this context. The learned counsel finally submitted that the institute run by the OP was a recognized institute and the complainants were not issued any diploma or certificate because they had failed the examination as they had been missing classes and he emphatically submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of OP and therefore, prayed that all the three appeals be allowed.

8. We have gone through the record on file in detail as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

9. It is pertinent to first discuss the issue with regard to the service having been effected on the OP/appellant. Zimini order dated 16.10.2001 of the learned District Forum clearly records that the respondent/OP had been served through ordinary summon and had not come present before the District Forum on the said date. The learned District Forum had, therefore, ordered that the OP be proceeded against exparte. In the face of this order, we find no merit in the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not been served while the complaint was under adjudication before the learned District Forum. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the appellant had the full opportunity to present her case before the learned District Forum but she on her own chose not to do so for reasons best known to her.

10. Furthermore, on repeated queries by the Bench to the learned counsel for the appellant about any letter or document granting recognition to the institute run by the appellant, the learned counsel failed to produce before the Bench any relevant document in this regard. Having perused the bills as well as the press clippings produced before us, we are of the clear view that these documents cannot be taken as any conclusive proof that the institute run by the appellant had due recognition from the Government of India. Furthermore, it is categoric allegation of the complainants that they had not been given any diploma or degree recognized by any University. Qua this allegation, the contention of the appellant is that the complainants had absented themselves and had failed the examination and therefore, they could not be given any diploma or certificate. However, nothing was produced on record to confirm the contention of the appellant that the complainants had been absenting themselves from the studies and that any examination had been conducted in which they had failed or had absented themselves. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we are of the clear view that the Appellant is guilty of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service and therefore, to our mind, the impugned orders are just, fair and legal and they need no interference.

11. Consequently, all the three appeals bearing No.1968 of 2002 (RBT No.1537 of 2008), Appeal No.1966 of 2002 (RBT No.1539) and Appeal No.1967 of 2002 (RBT No.1540) are dismissed and the impugned orders dated 29.7.2002 passed in complaint cases No.398, 401 and 399 all of 2001 are upheld being just, fair and legal. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

12. A certified copy of this order be also placed in other two appeals bearing No.1966 of 2002 (RBT No.1539) and Appeal No.1967 of 2002 (RBT No.1540).

13. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Announced in open court.

2nd July 2009.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]
PRESIDENT





Sd/-

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)]
MEMBER

Ad/-







STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH





[R.B.T. No.1539 of 2008/Appeal No.1966 of 2002]





Smt. Shashi, Proprietor/Director, E.T.&T. Computer Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

….Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Avtar Singh son of Sh. Sumer Singh R/o Village Jhal, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari.

… Respondent



BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.



PRESENT: Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent exparte.



MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.



1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.1537 of 2008 titled “Smt. Shashi Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar” vide which this appeal has been dismissed.

2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Announced in open court.

2nd July 2009.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]
PRESIDENT





Sd/-

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)]
MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH





[R.B.T. No.1540 of 2008/Appeal No.1967 of 2002]



Smt. Shashi, Proprietor/Director, E.T.&T. Computer Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.

….Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o Village Jhal, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari.

… Respondent



BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.



PRESENT: Sh. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent exparte.



MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.



1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.1537 of 2008 titled “Smt. Shashi Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar” vide which this appeal has been dismissed.

2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Announced in open court.

2nd July 2009.

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]
PRESIDENT







[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)]
MEMBER

Ad/-