G.BHANUPRASAD vs A.SRINIVASA RAO

THIS appeal is filed by the opposite party in O.P. No. 195/1997 on the file of District Forum, Khammam.

THE complainant''s son was admitted in H.M.S. Institute of Physiotheraphy at Thumkur on payment of Rs. 60,000/- towards donation and deposit. He paid Rs. 50,000/- through cheque bearing No. 600706 dated 9.9.1995 of Canara Bank, Khammam Branch and paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 9.9.1995 at Khammam to the opposite party. On getting admission, he went to Thumkur along with his son and after admitting him returned to Khammam. However he was surprised to see that his son also left Thumkur on the same day and reached home as he could not withstand the ragging of the senior students. On repeated requests the opposite party refunded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- paid in cash promising to repay the balance of Rs. 50,000/- at an early date. As the balance amount was not refunded, the complaint was filed. The opposite party alleged that the Institute was located at Thumkur and, therefore, the District Forum, Khammam had no territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, the money was paid to the institution and not to him in his personal capacity and the fact that admission was given proves it. If the complainant''s son felt home sick and returned, he could not be held responsible for the same as the institute was not made a party and in his personal capacity, he was not required to return the amount Rs. 10,000/- was returned only as a goodwill gesture.

The District Forum relied on the documents filed by the complainant, namely counter foil of Canara Bank showing payment of Rs. 50,000/- by cheque and letter written by the opposite party returning Rs.10,000/- and promising to send the balance as early as possible dated 20.1.1996 and directed the opposite party to return Rs. 50,000/- within one month. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

WE have gone through the records and do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum since the two documents filed by the respondent clearly show payment of the amount and subsequent refund of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant with a promise to send the balance amount. If the appellant was not responsible for refund of the balance amount or he was not in a position to do so in his individual capacity, he would have mentioned that fact in the letter and that the respondent should write to the institute directly since the money was deposited with the institute and he could not withdraw the same. Since nothing of this sort is mentioned and his assurance of returning the money "as early as possible" confirms that he was in a position and had the authority to return the money paid by the respondent for admission of his son. WE, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment eight weeks. Appeal dismissed.