Tribunals and Commissions(2004) 03 NCDRC CK 0149

SUPERINTENDENT, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE vs SUBHASH CHAND MATHUR

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 1 March 2004 · Citation: 2004 2 CPC 350 : 2004 2 CPC 507 : 2004 3 CPJ 54

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.A.A.Khan , Sushma Tanwar J.
RESULT
Appeals 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

2 paragraphs · 262 words
1.

THESE cross-appeals are directed by the parties to Complaint No. 320/94 against the order dated 15.12.1994 whereby the D.F., Sikar, allowing the complaint of Shri Subhash Chand Mathur, complainant, had directed the Superintendent, Industrial Training Institute (Institute) (ITI), Sikar to pay compensation at Rs. 500/- for mental agony to the complainant Subhash Chand Mathur (complainant) for supplying the training certificate to him with undue delay. The Institute is aggrieved against award of compensation to the complainant and the complainant is aggrieved against award of negligible amount as compensation to him.

2.

THE grievance of the complainant was that he had joined the Institute for training in Electric Management for the Session 1978-1980 and although he had successfully passed the training and the result thereof was also declared on 16.9.1981 but the certificate of training was supplied to him as late as on 4.4.1994 after repeated requests made by him. Although the learned Counsel for the Institute urged that there was no relationship of consumer and provider of service between the parties for the obvious reason that no consideration was charged by the Institute from the student for imparting such training. But at the same time it was also admitted before us that the impugned order has already been complied with and the payment of Rs. 500/- has already been made by the Institute. In view of the fact that the impugned order has already been complied with, we do not feel inclined to decide the issue raised before us. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed with cost on parties. Appeals dismissed.