SONIKA TANDON vs RAUF MUSLIM JAMIA BAHERA

Justice Malik Sharief-ud-Din, President

THIS complaint has been made on the ground of negligent and deficient service provided to the complainant No. 1 by the opposite party and also on the ground of unfair trade practice indulged in by the opposite party. The opposite party No. 1 of whom the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 are the office bearers issued an advertisement in Daily Excelsior Jammu on 21.10.1992 inviting applications for admission to First Year B.D.S. Course, wherein it was specifically stated that the local students should get in touch with the opposite party at Hotel Samrat, Jammu on 25.10.1992. Persuant to this the complainant approached them, purchased an application form for. Rs. 100/- and submitted an application under Receipt No. 908. THIS was done on an assurance being extended by the opposite party that their College was duly recognized and registered by the Dental Council of India. The complainant was, thereafter, invited to join the Institute after making payments of Rs. 40,000/- by two bank drafts drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rehari in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party accepted the amount and a certificate was issued registering the complainant No. 1 as a student of the aforesaid Institute under Roll No. 17. She submitted all the requisite certificates and joined the College on 1.11.1992. It seems that the woe of the complainant started thereafter as neither the examinations for the First Year was taken nor was the syllabus for the First Year BDS Course cleared. The constant requests of the complainant failed to persuade the opposite party to take the examinations of the First Year as a result of which the complainant was finally compelled to take leave and proceed to home at Jammu on 1st of September, 1993.

After narrating the tale to her parents further approaches were made to the opposite party and finally they were told to go back to their homes as they will be called back as soon as studies were restarted. Even after their personal visit to the opposite party in February, 1995 the opposite party failed to provide necessary services as a result of which she was compelled to vacate the hostel accommodation and come back to her home. The opposite party even failed to refund the amounts she had deposited.

THE complainant''s case in short is that apart from the failure of the opposite party to provide adequate and proper facilities in the College, the College was lacking in infrastructure teaching staff, operation theatre and all other facilities required for an Institute of this nature. Apart from the fact that the Institute was not recognized by the Dental Council of India and, therefore, right from 1989 onwards it never took examinations of the students. All this happened despite an assurance provided by the opposite party that the College was recognized one and that the degree which it was to provide would be duly authenticated. In this manner due to the deficient service provided to the complainant and due to this unfair trade practice by the opposite party the complainant has undergone mental, physical and financial agony and her precious time to persue her studies has been wasted, She has, therefore, claimed a refund of Rs. 40,000/- paid by her together with compensation to the tune of Rs. 7.00 lacs for the waste of her time and another sum of Rs. 1.00 lacs on account of compensation for mental strain and agony.

IT will be seen from the records of the case that the opposite party on 21.9.1994 sent an affidavit by post duly signed by opposite party No. 3 and authenticated by an Oath Commissioner seeking time to file objections. A record of this fact is made in the note on the file dated 10.10.1994. Thereafter till date the opposite party has failed to appear. The case is, therefore, being set ex-parte against him. The complainants have submitted their affidavits fully supporting their case. Taking in view the facts stated in the complaint supported by the evidence and also keeping in view the conduct of the opposite party in not contesting the case and also keeping in view the fact that in their affidavit submitted by post the fact that she had sought the admission in pursuance of the advertisement issued is not denied. We are satisfied that the opposite party has not only indulged in unfair trade practice virtually amounting to cheating but has also failed to provide the requisite services for which its services were duly hired. We, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainants together with a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs as compensation for loss and injury to her. We also assess the costs of litigation at Rs. 2,000/-. We, accordingly, direct the opposite party to make the payment of the aforesaid amounts within 8 weeks from the date of this order failing which the opposite party can invoke Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint is disposed off. Complaint allowed with costs.