Chitral Chadha Vs. the Principal, Appeejay College of Engineering

Chitral Chadha vs The Principal, Appeejay College of Engineering

Type Court Judgment Court Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula Decided May 07, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1148315

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1148315
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Judge: Nawab Singh, President, the Honourable Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member &Amp; the Honourable Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Decided On: May 07, 2014
Case Number: First Appeal No. 320 of 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chitral Chadha

Respondent

The Principal, Appeejay College of Engineering

Excerpt

nawab singh, president (oral): 1. this appeal has been filed by chitral chadha“complainant against the orders dated november 28th, 2013 and january 27th, 2014 passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum,(for short district forum), gurgaon, whereby, her complaint was dismissed in default and application for restorationof complaint was also dismissed. 2. appellant filed complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (for short the act), before the district forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (respondent herein) for not refunding the fee paid by him. 3. learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the complaint be restored at its original number. 4. it is well settled principle of law that no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. therefore, this commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of complainant. 5. accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the orders dated november 28th, 2013 and january 27th, 2014 are set-aside and the complaint is restored at its original number. 6. following batala machine tools workshop cooperative vs. presiding officer, labour court, gurdaspur (cwp no.9563 of 2002) decided on june 27th, 2002 passed by a division bench of honble high court of punjab and haryana, this appeal is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. 7. copy of this order be sent to the district forum forthwith.

Full Judgment

Nawab Singh, President (Oral):

1. This appeal has been filed by Chitral Chadha“complainant against the orders dated November 28^th, 2013 and January 27^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,(for short District Forum), Gurgaon, whereby, her complaint was dismissed in default and application for restorationof complaint was also dismissed.

2. Appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (respondent herein) for not refunding the fee paid by him.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the complaint be restored at its original number.

4. It is well settled principle of law that no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of complainant.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the orders dated November 28^th, 2013 and January 27^th, 2014 are set-aside and the complaint is restored at its original number.

6. Following Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this appeal is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum forthwith.

Same Court & Year Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Pa... Same Parties Chitral Chadha vs The Principal, Appeejay College of Engineering Same Subject Education Same Judge Nawab Singh, President, the Honourable Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicia...