ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the order dated 13.03.2008 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 668/07 Abhinav Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. Punjab Technical University by which, while allowing appeal, additional refund of Rs.7,500/- was ordered while confirming order of District Forum allowing complaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 took admission in the name Institute of OP Nos. 2&3/Respondent Nos.2&3 and deposited fees. Later on, complainant got admission in other University and requested for refund of fees. OPs refused to refund fees. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed appeal before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint. Later on, District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP Nos. 2 & 3 and directed them to refund Rs.39,534/- and further pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.2500/-, but dismissed complaint against OP No.1. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State
1
Commission vide impugned order directed OP-1/Petitioner to refund Rs.7,500/- to the complainant against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for the parties even after service. Perused record. 4. Learned State Commission while allowing appeal of the complainant observed as under: dverting to the merit of appeal: after perusal of pleadings of the parties, record of the case, impugned order and the grounds of appeal, we are of the considered opinion that contention of appellant has considerable merit that the District Forum failed to appreciate the clause given on annexure A-1 detailing the break-up of Rs.10,000/- charged towards counselling fee. Since it has been mentioned in A-1 reproduced in the grounds of appeal, that out of Rs.10,000/- deposited at the time of his counselling Rs.7,500/-, shall be credited towards the semester fee. The contention of appellant is further supported from annexure A-2 in which it is also stated that Rs.2500/- were towards the counselling fee. On the basis of the clause in the both A-a and A-2, it is proved that Rs.7,500/- are to be paid to the college or institute where the student seeks admission and the same amount would be given by the OP No. 1 to the institute where the admission is granted/sought by the student. Thus both these documents amply prove the case of appellant that he is entitled to refund of Rs.7500/- and the respondent No.1/OP No.1 P.T. Uwas entitled to retain Rs.2500/- on account of counselling fee etc. 5. Learned State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.7500/- from petitioner. 6. We do not find an illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
MEMBER
2