REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5213-5214 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.26485-26486 of 2009)  

Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. Col. & Anr. …Appellants

                           Versus

Geetika Khare                …Respondent

O R D E R

    Leave granted.

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 to the respondent to Rs.2,50,000/- only as against  

Rs.6,15,000/- awarded by the State Commission.  

The facts giving rise to the appeals have been set  

out in the orders passed by the State Commission and that  

passed  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 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 BDS 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 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:

“In  the  result  the  complaint  succeeds  and  is  allowed.   The  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.”            

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.  

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.   

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:

“Sir, 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.”             

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  @  12%  and  been  deposited  by  the  

appellant and withdrawn by the respondent.   

On behalf of the respondent, it was on the other  

hand, contended that the commission was justified in holding  

that there was a deficiency in the service provided by the  

appellant which finding did not call for any interference  

from this Court.   

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 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  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 amount of compensation

fixed  at  Rs.2,50,000/-  by  the  National  Commission  shall  

accordingly stand set aside. No costs.  

                           ……………..……………….……J.   

              (MARKANDEY KATJU)

      ………………….…………………J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi July 9, 2010