CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR.versusGEETIKA KHARE

                     [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
    Appellants.

        Vikram Singh Gulia, Urned Singh Gulia, Nikhil Jain for the
    Respondent.
B         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 been disbursed to the respondent. The
only question that remains is whether any further amount is
payable to the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
                                                                    F
     6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that order passed
by the State Commission was an ex parte order and that there
was no evidence whatsoever on record to suggest that the
respondent .had suffered any prejudice or inconvenience on
account of her having taken admission in the dental college of
the appellant. It is also pointed out that the father of the        G
respondent had in terms of his letter dated 30th July, 2000
withdrawn the respondent from the college because of his own
problems. This is evident from a reading of the letter, relevant
portion whereof is hereunder:
                                                                    H
    722            SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A          "Sir,

           I am herewith informing that I am withdrawing my daughter
           Ku. Geetika Khare from 1st Professional B.D.S. Course
           because of my own problems and for her admission in
           other college."
B
       7. It was contended that although the rules and regulations
  governing the admission of students to B.D.S. course did not
  permit the candidate to seek refund in the above circumstances
  the amount of fee paid to the college together with interest @
C 12% and been deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by
  the respondent.]

          8. On behalf of the respondent, it was on the other hand,
    contended that the commission was justified in holding that there
0   was a deficiency in the service provided by the appellant which
    finding did not call for any interference from this Court.

       9. Having carefully considered the rival submissions made
  at the bar and the material placed on record we are of the
  opinion that refund of the amount of fee deposited by the
E respondent with interest@ 12% p.a. w.e.f 31st July, 2000 till
  the date of payment meets the ends of justice. Since the said
  amount has already been paid to the respondent, we see no
  reason to award any further amount to the respondent. We
  accordingly allow these appeals and direct that the claim made
F by the respondent in her complaint filed before the State
  Commission shall stand settled with the payment of
  Rs.5, 15,000/- with interest @ 12% already received by the
  respondent. The directions issued by the State Commission
  and modified by the National Commission for payment of further
G amount of compensation fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- by the National
  Commission shall accordingly stand set aside. No costs.

    R.P.                                          Appeals allowed.