Case nº Revision Petition No. 533 Of 2013, (Against the Order dated 09/11/2012 in Appeal No. 169/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) of NCDRC Cases, February 25, 2015 (case 1. Atul Kumar and Anr. 2. Pankaj Sinha, Account Sectio, Vs Ravikant Sahu)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr K R Lonia, Advocate |
| President | Mr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | February 25, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
-
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Chattisgarh dated 09.11.2012 whereby the State Commission reversed the finding of the District Forum and directed the petitioner opposite party to pay Rs.46,500/- to the respondent complainant alongwith 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Besides the aforesaid award, Rs.5000/- was awarded as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation.
-
Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Ravi Kant Sahu filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Durg alleging that Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Narayan Trust is running a Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Pharmacy at Kumhari District Durg, Chattisgarh. The petitioners are the Chairman, Director, Secretary and employee of the said Institute. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2008-09, the complainant approached the opposite parties Institute for admission in B-Pharma Ist year course. The opposite parties requested to the complainant that they would ensure the admission of the complainant in management quota in the first counselling provided he pays Rs. 51,500/-. The complainant was told that against payment, receipt of Rs.5000/- would be issued and balance of Rs.46,500/- shall go in the account of Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust and for that amount, no separate receipt would be given and only an endorsement in this regard would be made on the receipt for Rs.5000/-. It is also the case of the complainant that he was assured that in the event of his not getting the seat in the first counselling, the deposited amount would be refunded after deducting Rs.1000/-. Misled by the representation made by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited Rs.51,500/- against which a receipt no. A/996 for Rs.5000/- was issued with details of payment written on the back. According to the complainant, no seat was made available to him and when he sought refund of the amount, the opposite parties declined to refund the money. Feeling aggrieved, consumer complaint was filed.
-
The opposite parties resisted the complaint. In their written version, they took the plea that only Rs.5000/- was charged from the complainant as registration charges for admission in B-Pharma, Ist year course in the year 2008-09. The complainant, however, failed to follow up for his admission and instead took...
To continue reading
Request your trial