JAYANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. C. RAGHAVENDRA
LAWS(APCDRC)-2008-2-2
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 08,2008

JAYANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Appellant
VERSUS
C. Raghavendra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. No. 230/2002 on the file of District Forum, Mahaboobnagar, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had appeared for EAMCET Entrance Test conducted in 1999 by Government of Andhra Pradesh and secured 529979 rank and submitted as he belongs to OC category, had a doubt about getting a free seat in Engineering College and approached opposite party No. 1 to ascertain his position. The complainant submitted that opposite party No. 2 was also present at that time and he enquired them about his chances of getting a seat and they expressed doubt about his getting free seat or payment seat and suggested him to pay Rs. 50,000 and reserve a seat under NRI quota in their college. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties promised to refund the advance amount Rs. 50,000, if he secured a free seat in a Government college or any other private college and suggested to pay the advance amount by way of cheque. The complainant submitted that neither he nor his father had bank account and hence he approached his paternal uncle, Krishnaiah, who came forward to issue a cheque in favour of opposite parties and thus the complainant paid to him Rs. 50,000 in cash and his uncle issued a cheque bearing No. 900921 dated 25.8.1999 for Rs. 50,000 in favour of opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 received the cheque and issued a receipt. The complainant submitted that he secured a seat in J.S.N. College, Kaghaj Nagar and could not personally approach the opposite parties for taking refund of the amount and, therefore, his father and paternal uncle, Krishnaiah, approached opposite parties several times for refund of the amount of Rs. 50,000 but they postponed refund of the amount on some reason or the other and ultimately on 20.3.2002 refused to refund the amount and adopted unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 50,000 with interest at 36% p.a. from 24.8.1999 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and costs.
(3.) OPPOSITE party Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter and denied the allegations made in the complaint that the complainant paid them Rs. 50,000 by cheque and advance towards payment seat under NRI quota for reservation of seat and that they refused to refund the amount on his securing a free seat. They also denied that one Krishnaiah has issued a cheque No. 900921 dated 25.8.1999 and submitted that it is a concocted story to grab the amount from the opposite parties. They further submitted that the said Krishnaiah is one of the Directors of their College and that every director used to take amounts and refund to the college and sometimes the directors were asked to invest further amounts for the development of the college and, therefore, the said Krishnaiah had sent the said cheque for Rs. 50,000 to the college through the complainant and the complainant being a new person insisted a receipt and, therefore, opposite party No. 1 issued receipt on plain paper but did not issue official receipt. Opposite parties further submitted that taking advantage of the same, the complainant filed the C.D. without any prior notice and when opposite parties enquired Krishnaiah about sending his contribution amount through the complainant, the said Krishnaiah gave a letter to the college that he sent the cheque through his brother's son to hand over the same to the college and he never insisted on any receipt. Opposite parties denied the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation and submitted that the complainant had taken advantage of the receipt on plain paper issued by opposite party No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000. Based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A9 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part againt opposite party No. 1 directing it to refund Rs. 50,000 to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint (27.3.2002) till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 300 and dismissed the complaint against opposite party No. 2.;


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