Bhartiya College Of Agriculture Agricultural Engineering Pulgaon Chowk vs Sagar Sinha

RESPONDENT /Complainant -Sagar Sinha, had filed Consumer Complaint No.3 of 2012, whereas Respondent/ Complainant -Anil Kumar Sahu, filed Consumer Complaint No.04 of12,before District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Durg (Chhattisgarh) (for short, ''District Forum '').

THE Consumer Complaints were contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party. District Forum, vide separate orders of the even date 25.06.2012, allowed both the complaints.

BEING aggrieved, both parties filed separate appeals before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short ''State Commission '')bearing(FA Nos.12/382,383,388 and 389/12). Vide impugned order dated 25.7.2013,the State Commission, allowed the appeals filed by the respondent, whereas appeals of the Petitioner were dismissed.

NOW petitioner has filed above revision petitions. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.

SINCE , facts of both complaints filed by the respondents are similar and common question of law is involved hence, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

FACTS of (Revision Petition No.3187 of 2013) are taken as the lead case. Respondent had filed a consumer complaint against the Petitioner on the allegations, that he took admission in the First Year B. Tech.(Agriculture) for 2010 -2011 as a regular student in Petitioner ''s College which is affiliated with Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur. Counseling fee of Rs.200/ -was paid on 2.8.2010. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.21,900/ - was deposited him with the petitioner on 16.7.2010. Thus, respondent was allowed to appear in examination for the First Semester. It is further alleged that examination for First Semester was held on 26.11.2010. However, respondent ''s result along with two other students was withheld. On enquiry, respondent was told that caste verification has not been done. It is stated that respondent belongs to ''General Category ''. Since, result of respondent has not been declared nor the fee deposited by him has been refunded, as such deficiency has been committed by the petitioner.

ON these allegations respondent filed consumer complaint seeking the following reliefs; ''''a. To return the fee of both the semester Rs.43,800/ -(Rupees Forty three thousand) with 18% annual interest from the non -applicant institution. b. The complainant may be given Rs. 20,000/ - with the 18% annual interest which was spend on the other educational facilities from the non -applicant institution. c. The applicant be granted Rs.6,000/ - at the rate of 20/ -per day as conveyance expenditure from Pachari Para Durg to non -applicant institution. d. The complainant kindly be granted Rs. 10,000/ - as a cost of litigation form the non -applicant institution. e. The complainant kindly be granted Rs.2,00,000/ - as a compensation for the loss of physical, mental and economy from the non -applicant institution. ''''

DISTRICT Forum after hearing both parties, allowed the complaint and passed following directions; ''''1. The non -applicant pay Rs.43,000/ - to the complainant within the one month from the date of order. 2. The annual interest @ 7% to be paid on the above amount from the date of institution of the complaint dated 21.12.2011. 3. The non -applicant pay Rs.1,000/ - to the complainant for mental harassment. 4. Cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/ - of the complainant is admitted which is to be paid by non -applicant ''''.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent got admitted in Petitioner ''s College as per directions and norms laid down by Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur. It was the duty of the respondent to submit his caste verification certificate to the University to confirm the seat of ''''OBC quota ''''. The respondent could not be treated as ''General Category '' for want of caste verification certificate. Since, respondent did not submit the caste verification certificate, therefore he could not be enrolled in the University. Under these circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

RESPONDENT in para no.3 of its complaint has stated that he comes under the ''General Category ''. The petitioner in its written statement nowhere denied these averments of the respondent. Thus, it is manifestly clear that respondent belonged to ''General Category ''. There is nothing on record to show that when respondent had applied for admission in July, 2010, he was ever asked to produce the caste certificate. Further, respondent belongs to the ''General Category '' and as such there was no question of his submitting any caste certificate for the ''''OBC seat ''''.

EVEN otherwise, the petitioner for reasons best known to it, has not placed on record the ''Application Form for admission '' submitted by the respondent at the time of taking admission in the above course. The application form for admission, was the best piece of evidence which could have thrown light on the entire controversy as to whether respondent had applied for ''General Category '' seat or for the ''OBC Category ''. It is also an admitted fact, that respondent had deposited the requisite fee with Petitioner ''s College in July,2010. Thereafter,respondent had taken examination for First as well as Second Semester, respondent but till date result qua the respondent has not been declared. The State Commission in the impugned order observed; ''''We find that by giving admission to general category candidate against OBC quota seat definitely amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant had to suffer a lot of mental harassment and financial loss and above all loss of more than one valuable year of his academic life. In these circumstances we find the amount awarded by the District Forum to be insufficient. Though the complainant had claimed Rs.2,79,000/ -but the said amount appears to be exaggerated. We find compensation of Rs.50,000/ - in addition to the amount awarded by the District Forum to be proper compensation in the facts of the case. So far as rate of interest is considered we find the rate awarded by the District Forum to be proper. Hence appeal No.FA/12/388 filed by complainant is partly allowed in aforementioned terms. The other Appeal bearing No. FA/12/382 filed by O.P./Institution being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed ''''.

UNDER section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

WE fully concur with the findings given by the State Commission, that there was no fault on the part of the respondent at all. On the other hand, the fault lies at the door of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, above revision petitions having no legal merit, stand dismissed with total cost of Rs.10,000/ -(Rupees Ten Thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the above cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''''Consumer Legal Aid Account '''' within four weeks from today.

IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST on 25.04.2014 for compliance.