SHIV KUMAR S/O. SH. RAM CHAND vs M/S. DIVYA INSTITUTE DIVYA KUNJ NEW TOTU

Revision Petition no. 2072 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 6 th May 2016 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 35 of 2016.

The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent/ opposite party - Divya Institute alleging that pursuant to an advertisement got published by the respondent in certain newspapers and also after going through a pamphlet circulated by the respondent, the petitioner took admission in M P Ed course run by the respondent for the academic session 2008-2009. Initially, the petitioner had deposited Rs.15,000/-, thereafter he deposited Rs.2,500/- on 20.06.2009 and Rs.2,000/-. He was issued an admit card for taking examination for the first year. The petitioner took examination, as per time table appearing in the admit card. However, the result was not declared. When the petitioner approached the respondent to find out why the result had not been declared, he was informed that some money was still due from the petitioner and, in case, the petitioner pays that amount of money, the result would be declared within two weeks. The petitioner paid Rs.2,500/- on 24.02.2010. The result was not declared even after the payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000/-. On these allegations, the petitioner prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent, to compensate him to a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs for causing him mental pain and affecting his career adversely.

The complaint was contested by the respondent. It was admitted that the petitioner had taken admission at Divya Institute for M P Ed for a two year course. It was also admitted that the respondent had taken the examination for first year. However, it was stated that against the amount of Rs.30,000/- payable by the petitioner, the petitioner paid only a sum of Rs.24,500/- and due to this reason, the result had not been declared by Singhania University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, which had conducted the examination.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, H P (''the District Forum'') vide its impugned dated 21.09.2015 while allowing the complaint gave the following order: "For the foregoing reasons, the instant complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant within 45 days from today failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till payment shall be payable. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as punitive compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant".

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal observed as under: "Respondent did not file any rejoinder to the reply, Besides relying upon the documents submitted with the complaint, to which the reference has been made, hereinabove, i.e., the receipts against which the money was paid and the admit card, respondent filed his affidavit. In the affidavit, the respondent did not controvert the plea raised by the appellant and in the reply he was supposed to have paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- against which he had paid only a sum of Rs.24,500/- and because of that Singhania University, which conducted the examination, did not declare his results. The aforesaid plea of the respondent is verified by the affidavit of its Director Vivek Sood, which was filed along with the reply.

Non-denial of this plea of the appellant, by the respondent, implies that the latter knew that he was required to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-. It is the respondent''s own case that he had paid only a sum of Rs.24,500/-.

Now, when the respondent is shown to have not paid the full fees and the result is pleaded by the appellant to have been with-held by the University, respondent cannot be said to be entitled to any damages.

In view of the above, stated position, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. In view of the factual position noticed, hereinabove, we direct the appellant to take up the matter with Singhania University for the declaration of the result of the respondent in case, he pays the balance amount of money, within two months from today".

Hence, the present revision petition.

We have heard the petitioner/ complainant who is appearing in person. He has contended that the respondent Institute has committed deficiency in service as his examination results have been with-held. On a query he accepted that he had not paid the full amount due and but stated that the respondent had never raised any demand so that he could pay the same.

We are not convinced by his argument. In his complaint the petitioner has stated that when the results were not declared he had approached the respondent in October 2009 and also again in December 2009, when he had been informed that the Singhania University had raised some objections on account of the fee deposited. He had been informed that as he had not paid the full amount his result would not be declared, until he paid the full amount. Even thereafter he deposited only Rs.5,000/- and not the full amount. 8. We have gone through the record. It is seen that the date sheet/ admit card were not issued by the respondent as also the results were to be declared not by the respondent but by the Singhania University. The respondent had informed him during his visit in October and in December 2009 about the amount he still had to pay. The petitioner failed to deposit the full and final amount towards fee and hence, his results were with-held by the Singhania University.

We find no infirmity in the order of the State Commission which has accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to take up the matter with the Singhania University for the declaration of the result of the petitioner after he pays the balance money due.

In view of the above, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity, thus the revision petition as also the complaint is dismissed.