Right of lien and consumer protection act

 

Right of lien and consumer protection act

Registrar of Manipal University and Another v. Dr. Sushith 2012 SCC OnLine NCDRC 846.  

 

Facts: The Respondent/Complainant obtained admission for the Post-

Graduate Degree Course in MD in Biochemistry at the Petitioners institution

for the Academic Year 2005-06. The Respondent completed and passed the

said course in the year 2008. The Petitioners were required to issue him a

degree certificate confirmed by Academy of higher Education. An agreement

was executed between the Petitioners and the Respondent whereby the latter was to undertake to serve the Petitioners for a period of 5 years after

completion of the course, failing which he would have to repay the entire

tuition fee. The Respondent had absented himself from the service and not

reported back. As lien for that, the Petitioners retained his certificates. In

spite of repeated requests and demands made by the Respondent to the

Petitioners, the latter refused to issue the said certificate and withheld

it without any substantial reason or cause. A complaint was filed by the Respondent before the District Forum aggrieved by the decisions against it by the District Forum as well as the State Commission on appeal, the present instant revision petition was filed by the Petitioners.

Issue: Whether the order of the State Commission will be upheld?

Decision: The question before the National Commission was whether the

Petitioners had acquired the right of lien for retaining the certificates. It was

held that the agreement between the two parties did not contain any condition or clause by virtue of which the Petitioners-University was entitled to retain the degree or certificate of the Respondent as a lien till the latter had fulfilled the terms of the aforesaid agreement. The order of the State Commission was upheld and the revision petition dismissed.

Scope of revisional jurisdiction

Birla Institute of Technology and Science v. Abhishek Mengi S/o

Virender Kumar  2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 394.

 

Facts: Complainant after depositing requisite entrance fee and qualifying

the examination was selected for admission to M.Sc. (Tech) General Studies,

with Petitioners. Complainant also deposited Rs. 55,000/-, as advance fee.

Complainant got admission in Engineering College after that Complainant,

made a request to the Petitioners to refund the admission fee and give the

original certificates. Complainant was informed that fees had been forfeited,

as he had not submitted the withdrawal form. Complainant was only refunded Rs. 8,000/-, as mess advance and caution deposit, out of Rs. 55,000/-.Complainant filed complaint u/s. 12 of Act before District Forum alleging that Petitioners were not refunding the full amount of fees, deposited by Complainant. Petitioners contended that District Forum at Chandigarh had

no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action arose to Complainant at

Chandigarh. The entire cause of action arose at Pilani, Rajasthan. It was

further stated that Petitioners does not fall within the category of a service

provider, qua the Complainant. District forum allowed said complaint and

directed Petitioners to refund to the Complainant the balance amount of

Rs. 47,000/-, after deducting Rs. 1000/- as service/ processing/ administrative

charges, besides costs of litigation assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. State Commission dismissed appeal filed against said order; hence this revision petition.

Issue: Whether the scope of revisional jurisdiction was held to be limited?

Decision: The question before National Commission whether District Forum

had jurisdiction for this matter. It was held that Petitioners have not placed

any document to show that seat vacated by the Complainant was not filled

up at all. Moreover, u/s. 21 of Act, the scope of revisional jurisdiction was

very limited. Under s. 21 of Act, this Commission can interfere with the

order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised

a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. There was no jurisdictional or legal error which call for interference in the exercise of powers u/s. 21 (b) of the Act; hence revision petition dismissed.