ATUL KUMAR vs Ravikant Sahu

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Chattisgarh dated 09.11.2012 whereby the State Commission reversed the finding of the District Forum and directed the petitioner opposite party to pay Rs.46,500/ - to the respondent complainant alongwith 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Besides the aforesaid award, Rs.5000/ - was awarded as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/ - as cost of litigation.

BRIEFLY stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Ravi Kant Sahu filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Durg alleging that Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Narayan Trust is running a Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Pharmacy at Kumhari District Durg, Chattisgarh. The petitioners are the Chairman, Director, Secretary and employee of the said Institute. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2008 -09, the complainant approached the opposite parties Institute for admission in B -Pharma Ist year course. The opposite parties requested to the complainant that they would ensure the admission of the complainant in management quota in the first counselling provided he pays Rs. 51,500/ -. The complainant was told that against payment, receipt of Rs.5000/ - would be issued and balance of Rs.46,500/ - shall go in the account of Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust and for that amount, no separate receipt would be given and only an endorsement in this regard would be made on the receipt for Rs.5000/ -. It is also the case of the complainant that he was assured that in the event of his not getting the seat in the first counselling, the deposited amount would be refunded after deducting Rs.1000/ -. Misled by the representation made by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited Rs.51,500/ - against which a receipt no. A/996 for Rs.5000/ - was issued with details of payment written on the back. According to the complainant, no seat was made available to him and when he sought refund of the amount, the opposite parties declined to refund the money. Feeling aggrieved, consumer complaint was filed.

THE opposite parties resisted the complaint. In their written version, they took the plea that only Rs.5000/ - was charged from the complainant as registration charges for admission in B -Pharma, Ist year course in the year 2008 -09. The complainant, however, failed to follow up for his admission and instead took admission in Shankracharya Institute of Pharmaceutical in August 2008. As one seat was registered in the name of the complainant, it remained vacant for whole education session resulting in loss of Rs.2,00,000/ - to the opposite parties. Thus, it was alleged that by not refunding the amount, no deficiency in service has been committed. Learned District Forum on consideration of the evidence and the material on record came to the conclusion that complainant has failed to establish that he paid Rs.51,500/ - to the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached State Commission in Appeal. The State Commission on consideration of the evidence accepted the version of the complainant and allowed the appeal. This led to the instant revision petition.

LEARNED Mr. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based upon the surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel has contended that State Commission has committed a grave error in concluding that word "paid" at the back of receipt no. A -996 dated 18.07.2008 issued in favour of the complainant is against figure Rs.46,500/ - whereas actually the word "paid" denotes that out of total tuition fee of Rs.51,500/ -, Rs.5000/ - was paid. Counsel has tried to explain that balance Rs.46,500/ - was in respect of tuition fee instalments of Rs.26,500/ - and Rs.20,000/ - respectively payable on admission on 01.08.2008 and October 2008. Learned counsel has thus urged us to allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order.

WE do not find merit in this contention. Admittedly, receipt No. A/996 dated 18.07.2008 was issued by the opposite party Institute in favour of Ravi Kant Sahu. Perual of the said receipt would show that at the bottom, it is signed by Pankaj Sinha. At the top of the receipt, figure "Rs.46,500" is written and it is signed by Pankaj Sinha. It is unexplained as to why figure of "Rs.46,500/ -" was written and signed by Pankaj Sinha. Further, at the back of this receipt, it is written as under: 50000 -5000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45000 * Monday - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (9301754355) # Tuition fee 51500/ - 5000/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46500/ - Paid - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1st Instt. 26500/ - 4000/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Addms 1Aug ''08 2nd Instt. 20000/ - 3200/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Oct ''08

THE State Commission on reading of the same has come to the conclusion that since Rs.51,500/ - was received by the opposite party against the receipt of Rs.5000/ -, in order to assure the complainant, a kacha receipt at the back of proper receipt was given as a proof for payment of Rs.51,500/ - by the complainant. The State Commission has taken a view that the word "paid" is written against the figure Rs.46,500/ - and concluded that in all a sum of Rs.51,500/ - was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The aforesaid approach of the State Commission cannot be faulted because once receipt of Rs.5000/ - was issued, there was no occasion to write the word "paid" to confirm that Rs.5000/ - only has been received. Otherwise also, there is no explanation why at the top of the said receipt, figure "Rs.46,500/ -" is signed by Pankaj Sinha. This mystery could have been resolved easily by examining Pankaj Sinha as a witness. The opposite party, however, has failed to examine Pankaj Sinha to explain the real import of the accounts mentioned at the back of the receipt and also as to why Pankaj Sinha appended his signatures under the figure Rs.46,500/ -. Since the opposite party petitioner has withheld best witness, we are inclined to draw an adverse inference that had Pankaj Sinha been examined, his version would have gone against the petitioners. Thus, under the circumstances, we do not find any fault with the factual finding of the State Commission. The petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

IN view of the discussion above, we dismiss the revision petition.