CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL. & ANR. v. GEETIKA KHARE

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
T.S. Thakur
Judgment Date: 2010-07-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed. The Court directed that the respondent be settled with the refund of Rs.5,15,000 with interest already paid; the further compensation of Rs.2,50,000 as fixed by the National Commission was set aside; no further compensation is awarded; there is no costs order.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL. & ANR.

Respondents

GEETIKA KHARE

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. Umapathy
• M.M. Manivel
• Rakesh K. Sharma

Counsels for Respondents

• Vikram Singh Gulia
• Urned Singh Gulia
• Nikhil Jain

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal arising from a consumer protection dispute involving a BOS college run by the Controller and Vinayak Mission Dental College. Geetika Khare, a BOS student, had to withdraw due to lack of recognition and other deficiencies, alleging inconvenience, mental harassment, and loss of an academic year. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission granted an ex parte order directing the college to refund Rs. 5,15,000 with 24% interest and to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as damages for spoiling the academic year, plus Rs. 1,00,000 for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 costs. The National Commission later partly allowed the appeal and reduced compensation to Rs. 2,50,000. During the pendency, the appellant deposited Rs. 5,15,000 with interest as directed, which the respondent subsequently withdrew. The Supreme Court, upon hearing, held that the refund of the amount deposited with interest already paid meets the ends of justice and that there is no basis to award any further amount. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, and the claim for additional compensation is set aside, with directions that the original refund stands settled. The decision underscores that where the refund has already been paid, further compensation is unwarranted, and no costs are awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the State Commission's ex parte order awarding refund and damages was passed without an opportunity to defend and without material demonstrating prejudice to the complainant. They highlight that the college faced issues due to lack of recognition and other deficiencies, but the father’s withdrawal letter dated 30 July 2000 shows reasons for moving to another college. Although the college deposited the disputed amount under court directions and the respondent subsequently withdrew, no basis exists for awarding further compensation beyond the refunded amount. They also emphasize that refund of the fee already paid would meet the ends of justice. The National Commission’s reduction of compensation to Rs. 2,50,000 is erroneous given the admitted refund and the deposit, and the appeals should be allowed, setting aside the altered compensation and maintaining the refund as settled.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues that the college provided deficient service, causing inconvenience and loss of an academic year; the ex parte order directing payment of refund with interest and damages was justified to redress the harm suffered. The respondent maintains that the college’s lack of recognition and other deficiencies caused mental harassment and academic disruption, warranting compensation beyond mere refund. The deposition of Rs. 5,15,000 with interest during the pendency should not bar additional relief if justified by the evidence; the National Commission’s reduction of compensation was improper, and the relief granted should be upheld in full or appropriately increased.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2010] 8 S.C.R. 719 CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR. _v._ A GEETIKA KHARE (Civil Appeal No. 5213-5214 of 2010) ## JULY 9, 2010 B **[MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR,** JJ.] _CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:_ _Complaint by a_ BOS _student against a_ BOS _College-_ c _Alleging that student had to withdraw from the college for lack of recognition and other deficiencies, which caused inconvenience_ , _mental harassment and loss of an academic year-State Commission, directing refund of fee amounting to Rs._ 5, _15, 0001- with 12% interest and also awarding Rs._ D _6, 15, 0001as compensation-National Commission upholding the order of refund of fee with interest, but reducing_ - _the compensation amount to Rs._ 2, _50, 0001-. HELo: Refund of the amount of fee deposited by the student with interest_ @ _12% p.a. w.e.f 31st July, 2000 till the date of payment meets_ E _the ends of justice-Since the said amount has already been paid, there is no reason to award any further amount to the respondent-The directions issued by the State Commission and modified by the National Commission for payment of_ - _further amount of compensation set aside Medical Education._ F D F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 5213-5214 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.07.2009 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 340 of 2004 and Dated 20.08.2009 in Review Application No. 238 of 2009 in First Appeal No. 340 of 2004. G 719 H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 8 S.C.R. A G. Umapathy, M.M. Manivel, Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants. Vikram Singh Gulia, Urned Singh Gulia, Nikhil Jain for the Respondent. B The following order of the Court were delivered ## **ORDER** ## 1. Leave granted C 2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has by the order impugned in these appeals upheld an ex parte order passed by the State Commission directing refund of a sum of Rs.5, 15,000/- to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. but reduced the amount of compensation awarded D to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only as against Rs.6, 15,000/ - awarded by the State Commission. 3. The facts giving rise to the appeals have been set out in the orders passed by the State Commission and that passed E by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. We need not, therefore, repeat the same here again. Suffice it to say that the respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant herein alleging deficiency in service and seeking not only refund of Rs.5, 15,000/- paid by her towards F fee but also compensation for the loss of an academic year and mental harassment etc. The respondent's case as set out in the complaint was that she had secured admission to a BOS college established and run by the appellant but had to withdraw from the same on account of lack of recognition of the said college and also other deficiencies, which not only caused G inconvenience and mental harassment but also resulted in the loss of an academic year. The State Commission passed an ex parte order on 25th March, 2004 granting the following reliefs to the respondent: H "In the result the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR. 721 _v._ GEETIKA KHARE compensations claimed are hereby decreed. The opposite parties 01 and 02 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5, 15,000/ - with 24% interest with effect from 11-08-1998 till the date of payment. The opposite parties 01 and 02 are further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for spoiling the good academic years of the complainant with another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and torture. The complainant is entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/- only." 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant appealed to the National Commission which appeal has been partly allowed by the latter reducing the amount of compensation payable to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A reading of the order passed by the National Commission shows that during the pendency of the appeal before it the appellant had been directed. to deposit an amount of Rs.5, 15,000/- received by it towards fee from the respondent with interest@ 9% w.e.f. 31st July, 2000, and the respondent given liberty to withdraw the same. It is not in dispute that the said amount was deposited by the appellant and has been disbursed to the respondent. The only question that remains is whether any further amount is payable to the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that order passed by the State Commission was an ex parte order and that there was no evidence whatsoever on record to suggest that the respondent .had suffered any prejudice or inconvenience on account of her having taken admission in the dental college of the appellant. It is also pointed out that the father of the respondent had in terms of his letter dated 30th July, 2000 withdrawn the respondent from the college because of his own problems. This is evident from a reading of the letter, relevant portion whereof is hereunder: A B D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. 722 A "Sir, ## B I am herewith informing that I am withdrawing my daughter Ku. Geetika Khare from 1st Professional B.D.S. Course because of my own problems and for her admission in other college." 7. It was contended that although the rules and regulations governing the admission of students to B.D.S. course did not permit the candidate to seek refund in the above circumstances the amount of fee paid to the college together with interest @ C 12% and been deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by the respondent.] 8. On behalf of the respondent, it was on the other hand, contended that the commission was justified in holding that there 0[was a deficiency ][in ][the service provided by the appellant which ] finding did not call for any interference from this Court. 9. Having carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and the material placed on record we are of the opinion that refund of the amount of fee deposited by the E respondent with interest@ 12% p.a. w.e.f 31st July, 2000 till the date of payment meets the ends of justice. Since the said amount has already been paid to the respondent, we see no reason to award any further amount to the respondent. We accordingly allow these appeals and direct that the claim made F by the respondent in her complaint filed before the State Commission shall stand settled with the payment of Rs.5, 15,000/- with interest @ 12% already received by the respondent. The directions issued by the State Commission and modified by the National Commission for payment of further G amount of compensation fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- by the National Commission shall accordingly stand set aside. No costs. R.P. Appeals allowed.