APTECH CENTRE DIRECTOR vs DAYANANDA PANIGRAHI

THE APTECH Centre Director has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the order dated 24.4.1997 of Sundergarh-II District Forum, Rourkela made in C.D. Case No. 43 of 1997. By the said order, the appellant and respondent No. 3 have been directed to pay to the respondent No. 1 a sum of rupees 50,000 as compensation and rupees 500 as costs.

THE case of the respondent No. 1 is that he took admission for computer education in respondent No. 3''s Institute. He paid a total sum of Rs. 21,600 towards fees for the entire course. He studied in the Institute of respondent No. 3 up to August 1996. Due to personal reasons, he decided to continue his further study at the appellant''s Centre at Rourkela. His request for transfer from Sambalpur Centre (respondent No. 3) was accepted and the appellant was requested to permit him to continue his further studies at its Centre. THE appellant however insisted the respondent No. 1 to deposit the proportionate share of fees to accommodate him at Rourkela. THE respondent No. 3 although agreed to make payment of proportionate share of fees, he did not do so. As a result, the appellant withdrew the respondent No. 1''s candidature. On account of this, he could not complete his course and had to lose one year. According to him, his career was marred by the appellant and accordingly claims compensation of Rs. 85,000. It is an admitted fact that the appellant''s Centre at Rourkela and the respondent No. 3''s Centre at Sambalpur are sister concerns of the APTECH computer education headed by the respondent No. 2. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 took admission for computer education in the Sambalpur Centre (respondent No. 3) and paid a total sum of Rs. 21,600 as fees for the entire course. After continuing his studies in the respondent No. 3''s Centre, he wanted to shift to the appellant''s Centre at Rourkela for further studies. His request was duly granted and the respondent No. 3 Centre allowed him to continue his further studies in the appellant''s Centre at Rourkela. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 3''s Centre received full fees for the whole academic career. Since he wanted to pursue his further studies at appellant''s Centre at Rourkela, the respondent No. 3 in all fairness should have taken steps to disburse the proportionate amount of fees to the appellant''s Centre. In view of the admitted position that both the centres are sister concerns, if there was any problem, it could have been sorted out between them by mutual discussion. Because of non-payment of the differential amount of fees, the appellant No. 3 withdrew the respondent No. 1''s candidature. As a consequence, he could not compelete his course and had to suffer. In these circumstances, the District Forum has rightly fixed vicarious liability on the appellant and the respondent No. 3.

It is relevant to note here that the respondent No. 3 Centre has not challenged the order of the District Forum. Therefore, it has become final so far as the said respondent No. 3 is concerned. In view of the loss of one year of study, the respondent No. 1 is entitled to be compensated and the District Forum has rightly assessed damage, which is quite reasonable.

IN the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.