|
advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
|
|
advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
|
|
Serving poor
quality food in the Hostel can be a valid reason for withdrawing from the
College.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3169 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 30/10/2015 in Appeal No. 110/2015 of the State Commission Orissa) 1. PRINCIPAL, SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IPL BRANCH, GUDAVALLI, PO/PS GUDAVALLI VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GOVIND PRASAD RATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIC OF INDIA, R/O BRAHMIN STREET, RAYAGADA PO/PS/DISTRICT, RAYAGADA ODISHA STATE ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 07 Jan 2016 ORDER
The complainant admitted his son Anjan Kumar Rath to Sri Chaitanya Educational
Institution in a course, which was to last for 2 years. He paid a sum
of Rs.90,000/- to the Institution towards admission fee, boarding charges
etc. The child was withdrawn from the college on account of his ill
health and food problem. The case of the complainant as set out in the
complaint is that the food in the hostel was not prepared in hygienic condition
and that resulted in his son developing food problem. On withdrawing
his son from the institution, the complainant asked the institution to refund
the money, which he had deposited. Since the institution refused to refund
the money, he preferred a consumer complaint alleging deficiency on the part
of the institution.2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party denying unhygienic condition in preparation of the hostel food. It was further stated in the reply that once the student is admitted, there is no scope for admission of another student on his seat for the next two years and in case, they are made to refund the fee on withdrawal of the student they would suffer financial loss in running the Institution. 3. The District Forum directed the petitioner/opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this Revision petition. 5. The State Commission noted from the record that due to poor quality of the food served to the students, a number of the students including the son of the complainant suffered from food poisoning. If this so, no fault can be found with the complainant withdrawing his son from the institution. Had his son not suffered from food poisoning on account of unhygienic food served in the hostel, the complainant in all probability would not have withdrawn his son from the institution in which admission was taken by him. 6. That apart, the petitioner did not produce any rule of the institution prohibiting filling up the seat falling against on account of withdrawal of student. In the absence of such a rule nothing stopped the petitioner from filling up the vacancy which became available on account of withdrawal of the son of the complainant from the course in which admission was taken by him. Moreover, the petitioner did not produce any record before the District Forum to prove that the seat, which had fallen vacant on account of withdrawal of the son of the complainant actually remained vacant throughout the course and was not filled up at any point of time. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission. The revision petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Top |
|
|