MANTOSH KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE VISUALLY HANDICAPPED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in consumer complaint No. 355 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 1,000/ - towards cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party has also been held liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Mantosh Kumar, a resident of Kailash Nagar Colony, Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, took admission in B.Ed. Special Education (Visual Impairment) programme run by National Institute for the Visually Handicapped (for short "Institute") - opposite party for the academic year 2011 -12. After completion of the session, the Institute did not conduct the examination. When the complainant enquired about it, he came to know that the Institute was not granted affiliation by Uttarakhand Technical University (for short "UTU"). The complainant has also stated in his complaint that after completion of the course, he was allowed to appear in the entrance test for M.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) programme for the academic year 2012 -13. He secured 73 marks in the said test including interview and stood 14th in the rank in merit list. The complainant has alleged that the candidates securing less marks, in comparison of him, were admitted in the said course, but he could not get admission, because he could not submit his marks sheet of B.Ed. Special Education (V.I.) by that time. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 17.12.2012 and directed the opposite party - Institute, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the Institute has filed First Appeal No. 14 of 2013, while not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 01 of 2013 for enhancement. As both the appeals arise out of the same order, these are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.