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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more