Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/483
N.B.Sudheendra Rao,
No.18,2nd Main,2nd Cross,Surabhi Layout,Jakkur Main Road,
Bangalore-560064 . …. ……………………………………. Complainant
Vs.
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT,
IIPM Tower, 419, 4th Block,
100 Feet Road, Next to Canara Bank, Koramangala, BANGALORE – 560 034. …. Opp. Party 1
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT,
IIPM Tower, NBCC Plaza,
Pushp Vihar, Sec-5, Saket,
NEW DELHI – 560 017. ….. Opp. Party 2
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT,
IIPM Corporate Office, D-4, Level-4,
Rectangle-1, Behind Select City Walk ….. Opp. Party 3
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, President,
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant under section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.41,000/- with interest from 24.02.2011 to the complainant are necessary :-
The Opposite Parties through OP-1 has collected Rs.41,000/- as retention fee for admission of the son of the Complainant by name S. Vijay Bharadwaj on 24.02.2011, but till date inspite of repeated requests and demands they have not paid. Hence, the Complaint.
2. The OP-3 P. Choudhary, S/o Late Vinay Prasad Choudhary, Asst. Dean (Administration of OP-1) present and say that he is representing all the Opposite Parties. He further submits that they are ready to refund the amount, but the interest part may be waived. The Complainant is absent. Heard and perused the documents.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service as alleged?
(B) What Order?
4. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A):- In the positive
POINT (B):- As per the detailed order
REASONS
5. Points A & B:-
Reading the Complaint in conjunction with the documents and the admission of the Opposite Parties, it is needless to say that the Complainant had paid Rs.41,000/- to the Opposite Parties for retention of his son S. Vijay Bharadwaj. But the said amount has not been returned. This is nothing but an unfair trade practice much less deficiency in service. The amount had to be returned to the Complainant. However under the circumstances, if we direct the Opposite Party to pay interest only in case, they did not pay the amount within the time going to be ordered. Hence, we hold the above point accordingly and pass the following;
ORDER
1. The Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees forty-one thousand only) within 15 days from the date of this Order, failing which they shall pay the said amount with interest at 12% p.a. from 24.02.2011, until payment within 30 days.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days from the date of this order.
4. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount as stated above through DD by RPAD to the complainant as ordered above and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this Order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs immediately.
=====
Dt.26th DAY OF MAY-2011
Recent Comments