CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2006) 02 NCDRC CK 0098

MANISH CHAUDHARY vs ORBIT EDUCATIONAL And RESEARCH FOUNDATION

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 3 February 2006 · Citation: 2007 2 CPR 238 : 2007 3 CPJ 42

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N.Kapoor , B.K.Taimni J.
RESULT
Revision Petition dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.

IT was the case of the complainant that he had paid Rs. 14,00,000 to the second respondent for getting a medical seat for the academic year 2002-2003 in the first respondent''s college/institution. There is no dispute that he got admission in the second respondent institution in the year 2003-2004. At the time of admission, the second respondent collected an amount of Rs. 78,000 from the complainant. IT was the case of the complainant that since the second respondent did not have any requisite facilities, infrastructure for medical education, hence after attending for one year, not being satisfied with the facilities available, he did not continue with the studies and sought refund of the money paid. When this was not happening, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. An appeal against that order was also dismissed by the State Commission, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. We have nothing on record to show that Rs. 14 lakh was collected by the first respondent from the complainant. No evidence to this effect has been filed by the complainant and it is rightly rejected by the District Forum/State Commission. We have also seen that the complainant in spite of being having been permitted to appear for examination, did not write the examination and thus, obviously failed in the examination and then voluntarily discontinued the studies.

In view of the concurrent finding of the facts on the issue returned by both the lower Fora and no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error having been shown to us, we see no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission.

3.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.