Forum fines two for frivolous complaint

“These days we are encountering a number of complaints filed simply to harass the opposite party. The legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) to make such complainants liable to pay the costs incurred by the opposite party in defending false and frivolous complaints,” the Forum,headed by president Jagroop Singh Mahal,maintained.

“The case is an example of a complaint filed with malafide intentions without any basis. We direct the complainants to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 each to the college as well as PU under Section 26 of the CPA,” the Forum ordered.

The order came in response to a complained filed by one Arti Gupta and her father Jamana Prasad of Sector 31.

In the complaint,Arti said she had deposited a sum of Rs 22,200 towards admission in BSc (Medicine) Biotechnology,Part I programme at Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College (GGDSD) on July 14,2009. Thereafter,she received a letter from RIE Ajmer in which she was eligible for admission in BSc (BEd) and hence she took admission there.

Her father complained to the Forum that he moved a number of applications to the college for refund of the fee,but there was no positive response,calling it a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

“In the entire complaint it is nowhere mentioned on what ground they are claiming the refund of fee. The mere fact that Arti withdrew from the college without attributing any deficiency in service on the part of the college would not bring the complaint under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act,” the Forum maintained.

“In order to file a complaint,it is necessary for the complainant to show what is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The non-refund of fee does not amount to deficiency in service. We are,therefore,of the opinion that no case is made out to take cognisance of the complaint under the provisions of Act,” the Forum added.