Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1433

MOHIT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IIPM - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1433 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 29.06.2017 passed in C.C.No.812/2013 by District Commission, Bhopal-2)

 

MOHIT GUPTA.                                                                                           …          APPELLANT

 

           Versus

                 

IIPM THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR/

DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER.                                                 …         RESPONDENTS.

                                    

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER   

              

                                      O R D E R

 

11.12.2023

 

            Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondents though served.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-2 (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.812/2013, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2.                The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainant for taking admission in MBA course, conducted by the opposite parties deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 29.11.2011. It is pleaded that he wants to get admission in institution situated at Bhopal and for the same he had deposited the amount.   It is alleged that when he received the receipt of Rs.25,000/- he found that study centre was mentioned as Hyderabad to which he objected and made a prayer for refund of fees deposited, which was not refunded

-2-

to him.  It is further alleged that through Internet he came to know that the course conducted by the opposite parties is not recognized by UGC and AICTI. The complainant therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of fees deposited Rs.25,000/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

3.                The opposite parties remained ex-parte before the District Commission.  

4.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant has proved his case in absence of any rebuttal, even then the District Commission dismissed the complaint. He argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order of the District Commission is against the law and principles of natural justice and deserves to be set-aside.

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the record, we find that the complainant along with his complaint has filed his affidavit and only one document P-1. P-1 is phogocopy of acknowledgment issued by Programme Officer, IIPM Bhopal stating that “We have received the Part Retention Fee of Rs.25,000/-in Cash from Mohit Gupta on 29^th Nov 2011, at IIPM, Bhopal” Further Study Centre is shown as Hyderabad. Course shown as ISBE-PGP(B).

7.                Except this one document P-1, the complainant has not filed any other document such as copy of application form, terms and conditions of

-3-

admission, any brochure in order to substantiate his allegation that he applied for the course for study centre Bhopal. He has also not filed any other document to show that he applied for study centre Bhopal and he was allotted study centre Hyderabad.

8.                So far as the allegation of the complainant that he came to know through internet that the course conducted by the opposite parties was not recognized from UGC and AICTI is concerned, he has also not filed any document in order to substantiate his allegation. In appeal, before us also the complainant/appellant has failed to file any such document in order to prove his case. Thus we find that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

9.                In such circumstances, the District Commission has rightly concluded that the complainant failed to prove his case and dismissed the same.  We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

10.               In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Acting President                         Member