The J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, comprising President Smt. Nighat Sultana and Member Shri Maheep Gupta, has allowed a complaint filed against Acharya Institute of Technology & Ors., holding the Institute vicariously liable for the outstanding amount arising from the admission dispute.

Facts:

The complainants, Lakhinder Singh Sambyal and his son Dhananjay Singh, alleged that they had paid ₹2.80 lakh to Opposite Party No. 3 for securing Dhananjay's admission to Acharya Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, along with ₹10,000 as commission to Opposite Parties 2 and 3. They further paid ₹1,03,350 towards tuition fees and ₹25,000 towards hostel expenses to the Institute.

Opposite Parties 2 and 3 allegedly failed to deposit the admission fee with the Institute. Consequently, the Institute expressed reluctance to allow Dhananjay to appear for his first-term examination, and he was compelled to withdraw from the Institute. With police intervention, the complainants recovered ₹2 lakh, leaving ₹90,000 outstanding. Of this, ₹10,000 was claimed against Opposite Party No. 2 and ₹80,000 against Opposite Party No. 3.

The complainants sought recovery of the outstanding amount, reimbursement of fees and expenses, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and interest.

The Commission had earlier partly allowed the complaint and directed Acharya Institute of Technology to pay ₹1,53,000 to the complainants towards tuition fees and compensation. The Institute accepted the award and deposited the amount.

The complainants, however, challenged the earlier order before the J&K High Court, contending that their remaining claims, including the outstanding amount and interest, had not been adjudicated. The High Court permitted the complainants to withdraw the ₹1,53,000 deposited by the Institute and remanded the matter to the State Commission to decide the remaining claims after hearing the parties. The proceedings later resumed after the Commission was revived.

Institute's Contentions:

Opposite Party No. 1 denied any connection with Opposite Parties 2 and 3 and disputed liability for their alleged acts. It also sought to file a fresh written statement after the High Court remanded the matter.

The Commission rejected this contention, holding that the remand was limited to the remaining claims and did not reopen the trial. It also rejected the Institute's contention that it had not been properly served during the initial proceedings, noting that the Institute had appeared before the High Court, accepted the earlier award and deposited ₹1.53 lakh.

Observation and Decision:

The Commission held that the remand was limited to the remaining claims and interest component, and that the Institute, having accepted and deposited the earlier award, could not re-agitate the matter except on the pending claims. It rejected the Institute's contention that it had no connection with Opposite Parties 2 and 3.

Relying on its earlier findings, the Commission concluded that Opposite Parties 2 and 3 were acting as agents of the Institute under a tie-up arrangement, making the Institute vicariously liable.

The Commission found ₹80,000 remaining payable and directed the Institute to pay an additional ₹2,27,965, including compensation for delay. The amount was to be paid within 30 days, failing which 6% annual interest would apply from August 15, 2026 until payment.

The Institute was also permitted to recover ₹1,65,572 with accrued interest from Opposite Party No. 3, while the complainants were permitted to withdraw the earlier ₹1,53,000 deposit, along with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn.

Case Title: LAKHINDER SINGH SAMBYAL V/S ACHARYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS

Case No.: C.C. NO. 3004 OF 2008

Click Here To Read/Download Order