G.G.S. Indraprastha University vs Vaibhav

MR . Justice Ashok Bhan, President -Registrar, G.G.S. University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North, Room Nos. 2 and 3, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short), being aggrieved by the Order dated 12.4.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short) in Appeal No. A -697 of 2005, has filed the present Revision Petition.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Respondent/complainant was given provisional admission in B.Tech. Programme of the petitioner on 7.7.2002. Respondent submitted an Application on 24.7.2003 seeking withdrawal of admission as he had obtained admission in some other Institute. Respondent requested the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs. 20,000 which was declined on the ground that the last date for withdrawal of admission and refund of fee was already over. As per Rule, respondent was paid only a sum of Rs. 4,500. Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum by its Order dated 18.8.2005 directed the petitioner to refund the balance amount of Rs. 15,500 with interest @ 9% and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

BEING aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission on the ground that the Rule did not permit the petitioner to refund the entire amount in case of withdrawal of admission. The State Commission, by the impugned Order dated 12.4.2006, modified the Order of the District Forum to the extent that petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,500 less Rs. 4,500 which had already been paid to the respondent. The amount of compensation as well as cost of litigation was reduced to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 4,000. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed this Revision Petition.

COUNSEL for the petitioner has been heard. None has appeared for the respondent. Order to be proceeded ex parte.

ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the seat vacated by the respondent/complainant remained vacant thereby causing loss to the petitioner. It would be presumed that no loss has been caused to the petitioner.

IN view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.