Consumer case against pvt academy to be re-judged
- One year of AAP sarkar: Kejriwal announces cleaner water, better healthcare facilities
- JNU row: Meet the family of Kanhaiya who is a ‘danger to Mother India’
- Great as FM, reforms stopped after Manmohan Singh became PM: Jaitley
- Dial Kejriwal: Delhi Cabinet to take your calls today, 11 am onwards
- Sunanda Pushkar death probe: Tharoor questioned by Delhi Police for 5 hours
The UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has sent back a complaint to the UT consumer forum in a case of fee refund by a private academy, as the report of the process server was found to be 'incomplete'.
Akshita Gupta, a resident of district Solan, took admission in the Cosmetology and Salon Management Course conducted by Sterands Academy, Sector 35, for which she paid a fee of Rs 85,000, but was unable to attend the classes after eight days of taking the admission. She, therefore, requested that the rest of the fee be refunded to her, which, according to Akshita, the academy refused to do.
In its judgement in November 2011, the complaint was allowed against the academy, to refund the fee, as no representative came forward to contest the claim because though the summons to the academy was sent by the forum, the person who was present at the address refused to receive it, saying that the academy did not run there anymore.
According to the process server, the manager of the academy was present at the time of the incident, but also did not accept the summons, but when asked, he refused to divulge his name or any other particulars. The commission observed that in case the person refusing the summons did not divulge his details, it was required of the process server to make enquiries from other officials of the academy or from the neighboring establishments. The report of the process server was found to be incomplete and vague by the commission which stated that on the basis of the report, it could not be said that the summons were actually refused by a particular person.
On the other hand, the director of the academy had sworn in his affidavit that the academy is being run at the same address, making both versions contradictory to each other.