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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more