AMIT KUMAR JANGDE Vs. IIAS BHILAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 03.02.2011 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in appeal no. 373/2010. The appeal before the State Commission was filed respondent herein against the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg in complaint case no. 119 / 2009, whereby the said District Forum had allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission had modified the order of the District Forum thereby restricting compensation to Rs.25,000/ - with the stipulation that the. amount shall be paid -within 2 months from the date of passing the order failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. besides a cost of Rs.2,000/ -.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Brijesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate, counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Adab Singh Kapoor, Advocate, counsel representing the respondents and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to filing of the complaint and the defence plea put -forth are amply noted in the orders passed by the Fora below and need repetition at our end. The twin grievance raised in the complaint were firstly with regard to the respondent Institute being not authorised to impart distant education for the hotel management course and secondly that as per the assurance given to the complainant at the time of his taking admission, 100% placement after successful completion of the course was not adhered to. The District Forum found the opposite party guilty on both the counts and, therefore, allowed the complaint but the State Commission after a thorough examination of the matter and more particularly, document placed at page 120 -121 has found that the institute had the requisite recognition for imparting the distant education. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the finding and order of the State Commission as recorded in para 11 and 18 of primarily on the' ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that document referred to in para 11 of the impugned order (page 120 - 121 of the paper -book) was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, he presumes that no such letter exists on the record. We must reject this contention straightway because the State Commission has taken pains to refer to the entire material including the said letter by observing as under: -