D S BHINDER Vs. AMIT RISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 17.8.1998 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that opposite party, who is the proprietor of Sikh National College, Nathuana Darwaja, Jandiala Guru gave an advertisement in the newspaper 'daily Punjab Kesri' dated 3.10.1997 stating that they had arrangement for the success of candidates in B. A. final, even though they had not qualified in Plus two and that the candidates could be successful within two years in B. A. final. On reading this advertisement, the complainant contacted the opposite party, Sh. D. S. Bhinder, Principal, Proprietor of the above said Sikh National College. Mr. Bhinder assured the complainant if he deposited Rs.9,000/- he would arrange the Detailed Marks Cards of B. A. Part I and B. A. Part II from Punjab University, Chandigarh. The complainant deposited Rs.9,000/- with the opposite party. Complainant was also pursuaded to deposit Rs.3,000/- for admission in B. A. Final. This amount was received by the opposite party vide memo No.402 dated 24.9.1997. It is then alleged by the complainant that the opposite party arranged forged Detailed Marks Cards of B. A. Part I and B. A. Part II and handed over the photocopies of Detailed Marks Cards to the complainant. Opposite party never imparted education to the complainant but indulged in unfair trade practice by extracting a sum of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. Following reliefs were asked for in the complaint : (i) Directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.12,000/-. (ii) Compensation of Rs.2 lacs for indulging in unfair trade practice and also for wasting precious time of the complainant. (iii) Cost of the complaint.

(3.) The complainant had also filed an affidavit affirming his assertions made in the complaint. Reply was filed by D. S. Bhinder, opposite party, wherein it is admitted that the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- with the opposite party No.1. It is denied that he had informed the complainant to get the certificate of B. A. Part I and B. A. Part II. It is then stated in the written reply that out of Rs.3,000/- received from the complainant, he had deposited a sum of Rs.1,900/- in the Punjab University, Chandigarh. The opposite party has not admitted having issued receipt of Rs.7,500/- on 17.1.1998, but issuance of receipt dated 24.9.1997 is admitted. It is also admitted in the reply that the opposite party agreed for getting admission B. A. Part III on the basis of certificates produced by complainant of B. A. Part I and B. A. Part II. It is also admitted in the reply that the admission in the Punjab University was managed, but the Punjab University demanded two certificates of B. A. Part I and B. A. Part II. The complainant, according to the reply given, failed to produce the above said certificates before the Punjab University and for this reason he was unable to appear in the examination. After hearing the arguments and having gone through the documents on the file, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund Rs.10,500/- with 15% per annum interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment, by holding that the opposite parties were exploiting and extracting money from the students by misrepresentations by giving advertisement in the newspapers and thus they indulged in unfair trade practice and extracted Rs.10,500/- from the complainant.