HARSOHIT BIR SINGH & ANR Vs. GURU NANAK DEV ENGINEERING COLLEGE & ANR
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2010-8-6
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 03,2010

Harsohit Bir Singh And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) AMAR Bir Singh, appellant No.2 is the father of Harsohit Bir Singh, appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 applied to Punjab Technical University, respondent No.2 (in short 'PTU') for admission in B. Tech and deposited a sum of Rs.10,000 with the PTU on 27.7.2006. He was selected and was allotted admission in Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, respondent No.l (in short 'respondent No.l'). Appellant No.l was directed by respondent No.l to deposit a sum of Rs.38,304 for study in first semester of B. Tech which was deposited by appellant No.l on 2.8.2006.
(2.) IT was further pleaded that the sister of appellant No.2 advised the appellants that appellant No.l should get admission in BDS for better source of self employment. Appellant No.1 went to respondent No.l on 7.8.2006 for withdrawal from the semester and filed a formal application which was received by respondent No.l. It was well before the start of first semester. However, respondent No.l vide letter dated 20.12.2006 asked appellant No.l to collect the cheque of Rs. 4,000. On the receipt of this letter appellant No.l visited the office of respondent No.l and protested for the refund of less amount against the payment of Rs.48,307 towards fee.
(3.) IT was further pleaded that appellant No.2 suffered the accident in June, 2007, therefore, he could not go to the respondents. Respondent no.l again refused to refund any amount in excess of Rs.4,000 even after notification dated 23.4.2007 issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi was shown to him. Hence complaint for recovery of Rs.47,304 after deduction of Rs. 1,000 out of Rs.48,304, Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. Respondents No.l&2 filed the joint written statement. It was admitted that appellant No.l had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000 with respondent No.2 on 27.7.2006 and he was allotted college, respondent No.l. It was also admitted that appellant No.l had deposited a sum of Rs.38,304 with respondent No.1 on 2.8.2006. It was denied if appellant No.l along with his relative had visited the office of respondent No.l on 7.8.2006 or before the start of first semester or if he moved the application for withdrawal from the semester.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.