CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR. versus GEETIKA KHARE

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 09-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 719 
CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR. 
A 
v. 
GEETIKA KHARE 
(Civil Appeal No. 5213-5214 of 2010) 
JULY 9, 2010 
B 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: 
Complaint by a BOS student against a BOS College-
c 
Alleging that student had to withdraw from the college for lack 
of recognition and other deficiencies, which caused 
inconvenience , mental harassment and loss of an academic 
year-State Commission, directing refund of fee amounting 
to Rs. 5, 15, 0001- with 12% interest and also awarding Rs. 
D 
6, 15, 0001-
as compensation-National Commission 
upholding the order of refund of fee with interest, but reducing 
the compensation amount to Rs. 2, 50, 0001-. -
HELo: Refund 
of the amount of fee deposited by the student with interest @ 
12% p.a. w.e.f 31st July, 2000 till the date of payment meets 
E 
the ends of justice-Since the said amount has already been 
paid, there is no reason to award any further amount to the 
respondent-The directions issued by the State Commission 
and modified by the National Commission for payment of 
further amount of compensation set aside - Medical 
Education. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 
5213-5214 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.07.2009 of the 
G 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi in First Appeal No. 340 of 2004 and Dated 20.08.2009 
in Review Application No. 238 of 2009 in First Appeal No. 340 
of 2004. 
719 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
G. Umapathy, M.M. Manivel, Rakesh K. Sharma for the 
B 
Appellants. 
Vikram Singh Gulia, Urned Singh Gulia, Nikhil Jain for the 
Respondent. 
The following order of the Court were delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted 
C 
2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 
New Delhi, has by the order impugned in these appeals upheld 
an ex parte order passed by the State Commission directing 
refund of a sum of Rs.5, 15,000/- to the respondent with interest 
@ 12% p.a. but reduced the amount of compensation awarded 
D to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only as against Rs.6, 15,000/ 
- awarded by the State Commission. 
3. The facts giving rise to the appeals have been set out 
in the orders passed by the State Commission and that passed 
E by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 
New Delhi. We need not, therefore, repeat the same here again. 
Suffice it to say that the respondent had filed a complaint 
against the appellant herein alleging deficiency in service and 
seeking not only refund of Rs.5, 15,000/- paid by her towards 
F fee but also compensation for the loss of an academic year and 
mental harassment etc. The respondent's case as set out in 
the complaint was that she had secured admission to a BOS 
college established and run by the appellant but had to withdraw 
from the same on account of lack of recognition of the said 
college and also other deficiencies, which not only caused 
G inconvenience and mental harassment but also resulted in the 
loss of an academic year. The State Commission passed an 
ex parte order on 25th March, 2004 granting the following 
reliefs to the respondent: 
H 
"In the result the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The 
CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR. 721 
v. GEETIKA KHARE 
compensations claimed are hereby decreed. The opposite 
A 
parties 01 and 02 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5, 15,000/ 
- with 24% interest with effect from 11-08-1998 till the date 
of payment. The opposite parties 01 and 02 are further 
directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for spoiling the 
good academic years of the complainant with another sum 
B 
of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, 
harassment and torture. The complainant is entitled to cost 
of Rs.5,000/- only." 
4. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant appealed 
C 
to the National Commission which appeal has been partly 
allowed by the latter reducing the amount of compensation 
payable to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only. 
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A reading of the 
order passed by the National Commission shows that during 
D 
the pendency of the appeal before it the appellant had been 
directed. to deposit an amount of Rs.5, 15,000/- received by it 
towards fee from the respondent with interest@ 9% w.e.f. 31st 
July, 2000, and the respondent given liberty to withdraw the 
same. It is not in dispute that the said amount was deposited 
E 
by the appellant and has bee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.