GURU NANAK DEV PARA MEDICAL INSTITUTE THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL PARGAT SINGH, SAGGU NIWAS, NEAR DR. TARLOCHAN BARNALA PUNJAB Vs. SALIM MOHAMMAD S/O. SH. BALI MOHAMMAD, R/O. BHAINI KAMBOAN POST OFFICE KHANPUR, TEHSIL MALERKOTLA, DISTT. SANGRUR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') is to the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission'), in First Appeal No. 188/2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein and concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short, 'the District Forum) which, by its order dated 06.12.2012 directed the Petitioner herein to refund an amount of 27,600.00 along with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of 2,00,000.00.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts material to the case are that the Complainant, attracted by the advertisement, given by the Opposite Party, wherein it was mentioned that 'Guru Nanak Dev Para Medical Institute' Barnala, established by SBS Educational & Welfare Society, Barnala, under the Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali, that the Institute is having the following employment generated courses, took admission in the Diploma Course of Veterinary Pharmacy. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_49_LAWS(NCD)12_2016_1.html</FRM>

(3.) It was averred that the Principal, Sh. Pargat Singh, confirmed the duration of the course in his Institution and assured the Complainant that the affiliation of the said Institution was with the Para Medical Council, Punjab, Mohali. It was pleaded that as per the advertisement given in the Pamphlets and Brochure, the Complainant sought for admission of Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy and sent a Demand Draft of 2,600.00 dated 04.10.2010 and after completion of all the formalities, the Complainant deposited a sum of 4,000.00 as fee for the year 2010 for which Receipt No. 46, dated 16.06.2010 was also issued. The Complainant stated that he has paid the fee on the following dates, as herein under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_49_LAWS(NCD)12_2016_2.html</FRM>