PARTH SARTHI AYANGAR vs ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA

These revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

R.P. No. 2769/2013 has been filed by OP and R.P. No. 3469/2013 has been filed by complainant against order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the C.G. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. FA/12/557 - Parth Sarthi Ayangar Vs. Abhinav Shrivastava by which, appeal was partly allowed and order of District Forum was modified.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached O.P., the director of the institution "Stylus Academy" in October, 2010 for the purpose of undergoing a six months Training course for only "Basis Module" when he was advised to go for a six months Certification Course (Basis Module) of ''SAP University, Germany'' for which he agreed and deposited requisite amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with O.P. The complainant further averred that O.P. had assured him that he was having a tie up with software companies, so would arrange the desired course at other centers like Chennai, Bangalore etc. and subsequently he was asked to join at Bangalore where requisite fee would be deposited and thereafter study material and User name ID would be provided. Complainant averred that he contacted "Unisoft Info Tech Company" at Bangalore on the advice of O.P. where he noticed that neither any fee was deposited for the course nor his name was registered there. Complainant stayed there for 10 days when he was informed that two years'' experience was essential for the course, but said fact was not informed by the O.P. who had collected the fee amount from him by misguiding. Complainant further averred that he had not been provided Study material and User Name ID till date thereby he could not complete the six months course resulting into loss to him and causing harassment & mental agony. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the complainant was advised about the six months Basic Module Course for which the qualification informed was graduate like B. Com, B.C.A. and M.B.A. or two years'' experience, whereas complainant had informed to O.P. that he was a graduate and M.B.A. but had no experience. O.P. further averred that the complainant was advised to contact Managing Director of Unisoft Info Tech Company at Bangalore as per his choice of place for Level Training - 2 course and since it was noticed that he had no document related to M.B.A. so he was called for Level - 1 training but he did not join there. Managing Director of Unisoft Info Tech Company had twice intimated O.P. in this regard and accordingly the complainant was also intimated about the same. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.1,65,000/- with 6% p.a. interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, both parties have filed revision petitions along with application for condonation of delay.

As there is delay in filing both revision petitions, we deem it appropriate to condone delay for the reasons mentioned in the applications and delay in filing both revision petitions stand condoned.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused original record of learned State Commission.

Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in considering documents not forming part of Fora below without allowing application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the OP submitted that he moved application before learned State Commission for taking documents on record and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed

Perusal of record of learned State Commission reveals that OP/appellant filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before State Commission along with appeal and as per order dated 7. 2.2013, copy of documents filed with application were supplied to Counsel for complainant on that day and matter was adjourned for final hearing on 25.3.2013 on which date arguments were heard and impugned order was passed. Perusal of record of State Commission reveals that this application for taking documents on record was neither allowed nor rejected by learned State Commission and without allowing application and taking documents on record, learned State Commission had passed impugned judgment after considering those documents which were not forming part of record of Fora below. These documents could have been considered by learned State Commission only after allowing application under Order 41 Rule 27. As learned State Commission committed error in passing judgment while considering documents without documents taking on record, impugned judgment is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission firstly to decide application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and then to decide appeal.

Consequently, both revision petitions filed by petitioners are allowed and impugned order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. FA/12/557 - Parth Sarthi Ayangar Vs. Abhinav Shrivastava is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide firstly application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and then decide appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 11.7.2016.