Skip to main content

College to pay Rs 50K to girl for holding back certificates

The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has directed the M O P Vaishnav College for Women in Chennai to refund tuition fee amounting to 28,430 with 9% interest to a student for having withheld her original certificates for two years. In its order, issued in the month of May, the forum also directed the college to pay 20,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to the student and another 2,000 as cost to be paid to her father.

Nithyusha, daughter of K L N Phani, got admission for the MA Visual Communication course in the college, but discontinued after nine days. Dr Phani, a senior scientist at CSIR-Central Electrochemical Research Institute in Karaikudi, lives in Kumaran Nagar, Trichy.

Phani paid a fee of 29,430 to get his daughter into the course in July 2011. Nithyusha discontinued her studies after she fell ill due to food poisoning in the hostel. When Phani requested the institution to return the original certificates and refund the tuition fee, it demanded that the entire course fee be paid in advance in return for the original certificates.

When Phani went in person, he was not allowed to meet either the principal or the vice-principal. He was later told by the management he could either telephone or email them, but got no replies. Phani then sought the help of the Consumer Protection Council of Tamil Nadu, Trichy, which wrote a letter to the principal highlighting the UGC and ministry of human resource development norms that stipulated that only 1,000 must be retained when students leave the institution, and on no account can their certificates be withheld. When the college remained uncooperative, the council filed a complaint before the district consumer forum in Chennai.

 Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-06/chennai/41130522_1_certificates-food-poisoning-trichy

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more