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

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...