SHIVAM MALHOTRA Vs. OXL SCHOOL OF MULTIMEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Original Complainant against the Order dtd. 1/11/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 38 of 2018, by which the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal, filed by the Respondents School (hereinafter referred to as the Institute), has partly allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner herein, and issued certain directions, modifying the Order dated 8. 02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, UT at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in the Complaint filed the Complainant/Petitioner herein. By the said Order, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint and directed the Institute to refund the entire fee of Rs.2,90,000.00 as also pay compensation of Rs.50,000.00 and litigation costs of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant/Petitioner herein. The State Commission has enhanced the compensation of Rs.50,000.00, as directed by the District Commission, to Rs.3,00,000.00 and maintained rest of the directions given by the District Commission.

(2.) In July, 2013 the Complainant/Petitioner had taken admission in Three Year Degree Course in B.Sc. Multimedia offered by the Institute, for which by November 2015 he had paid fee of Rs.2,90,000.00. The Institute did not conduct annual examinations and, on pressure from the Students, the Director of the Institute (Opposite Party/Respondent No.2) handed over to the Complainant/Petitioner herein one printed certificate relating of Diploma in Multimedia in December, 2015 whereas he had taken admission in B.Sc. Multimedia. In December 2015 itself the Institute was closed and shifted to another place where it was running in the name and style of C/o ORANE Institute of Beauty and Wellness at Chandigarh. When the Complainant/Petitioner approached the Director of the Institute, he was assured that the examinations would be conducted but at the same time it stopped taking classes and closed the Institute. The Complainant/Petitioner demanded refund of the fee in April, 2016 but the Institute did not refund the fee. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Institute, the Complainant/Petitioner herein filed the Complaint before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned in the Complaint.

(3.) As noted above, the District Commission, while allowing the Complaint, had issued the aforesaid directions to the Institute.