APTECH COMPUTER EDUCATION Vs. RAVI KUMAR BALHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aptech Computer Education has come up in appeal against the order dated 14th July, 1998 passed by learned District Forum, Hisar, whereby complaint of Ravi Kumar Balhara alleging deficiency in service against the appellant Institute, has been allowed by directing them to refund of sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, as he had discontinued his studies after one year of his admission i. e. after qualifying 1st semester of B. Tech Degree Course. According to the complainant he got admission in Computer Course Certificate and B. Tech Degree in Aptech Computer Education, Hisar in 1996 by depositing a sum of Rs.24,790/- by way of admission fee, tuition fee and other incidental charges as demanded by the Institute. He discontinued his studies in the Institute after one year, as according to him Institute did not start B. Tech Degree Course. Since this delay spoiled his career and also caused monetary loss, he approached the District Forum for the refund of the amount deposited by him. In their reply, the Aptech Computer Education Institute pleaded, that the complainant had suppressed the material facts and has not disclosed that the course had already started and he had also qualified 1st semester of the course in the middle of 1997 and that number of other students were already continuing that course. It was further pleaded that as the complainant wanted to join some other Institute he had himself abandoned his studies; hence he was not entitled to any refund of the amount. Despite all this, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the Aptech Institute to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

(2.) In the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the order on the face of it was one-sided, illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the correct factual position disclosed in the written statement has not been take into consideration at all. The learned Counsel further contends that when the complainant has already attended the course for full one year and has abandoned the classes of his own sweet Will, Institute was not responsible for the remissness on his part, hence not liable to refund any amount.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent-complainant in person, we are of the considered view that impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is untenable in law. We entirely agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant and find that, as the complainant had been attending the classes for about one year, during which period he also qualified 1st semester, non- attendance of the classes by him at later stage does not entitle him to claim any refund of the admission fee or tuition fee deposited by him in 1996. Consequently, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned District Forum, thereby dismissing the complaint with no order as to costs.