AJAY KUMAR Vs. L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ajay Kumar, against the order dated 07.08.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.34 of 2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant applied for admission in MBA course through Distance Education, which was advertised by the respondents in the month of Aug. 1998. The petitioner kept on pursuing with the opposite parties to know the exact date for commencement of the course, but no clear answer was given by the respondents. Petitioner finallycame to know on 11.05.2000 through news item that the respondents had cancelled the said course. Then, he pursued for refund of his fees and for compensation by the respondents for wasting petitioner's time and for compensating him for his unemployment during this period. As per the petitioner's case, he did not receive any information or any response from the respondents. He then approached the office of the Governor and then he received a letter in 2006 from the respondents that the petitioner may get his refund of fees after submitting the original receipt. The petitioner did not submit the original receipt as this was the only proof of having deposited the fees and having applied for admission. Consequently, petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Munger, (in short 'the District Forum').It was claimed in the complaint that the petitioner has suffered a monetary loss to the tune of Rs.4,50,000.00 by keeping the petitioner in suspense and halting the teaching, thereby ruining his career, as he could not pursue the MBA course elsewhere during this period. The complaint was resisted on the ground that the petitioner never approached the respondents for refund of his fees. The said course was cancelled because the respondents did not get the required permission from the State Government to start the said course. Claiming no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, it was requested to dismiss the complaint. The District Forum after considering averments of both the parties however, decided the complaint vide its order dated 23.12011 as under:-

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred First Appeal bearing No.34/2012 before the State Commission, which was allowed vide its order dated 07-08-2014 as under:-