Islamic Academy Of Education, vs The Chairman on 25 May, 2009

rate ef interwi: as assured and despite the iegaip~e_Vtxi;i_cevv

dated 02.12.2955, ameunt of Rs.1,06,2$,41’8{v§V.:t§iiet;tee’.__.J”-.

by the ssecend Opposite Party under_Jthe__heas;i”:fesét;vfiherftges. ” ” it

and excessive interest has net been paid.

parties. Hewever, the :empti_atn.anti:vas l§mEtveciV.ij£’ts_¢;:iaim%

fer Rs.99,83,00D/–. It is furtheytksierted tfiat: dpposite
parties have faiiw ta re:’se€:r Atfitfcptetfih am: teasonabie service

to the tf€§ii”!’tV£)ia§:!.§T,8flt” jthere is”tS*ef”:i:iency in service an the

part ofithaf which they are iiabie to

compensatethe c¢V!fs’:;$ir-_3’iri5nrV1t and therefore, the complaint

” for agbeate said” re.–*–é–fis.

State Commission by order dated

G2.t§’&i§2§O§’;’i: that as the compiaireant has sought for

‘.V.’direetiari’.i:_te’ the Gpposite Parties to pay a sum of

‘u..jifRs_9§.,’3Z-v3;0G0i– aiieging breach of centract in the

etagtfgéteinant, the appropriate remedy for the compiainant

” “tees to approach the Civii Court and net by way of fiiing a

-9»
complaint before the State Commission under the
Consumer Protectlon Act. Accordlngiy, the State

Commission has dismissed the complaint reserving liberty
to the complainant to approach the Civil court,

‘ advised. Being aggrieved by the said order

Commission, the complainant hag preferretl’1jj~thi*a: w

Petition.

4. We have heard tha’l’leas’hed appeafing
for the writ petitioner; l A A

5′.’ “”” oo:§hseIh”_”Vap’oearlng for the writ
petitioner eomplaint was matntainable
before _ the%”‘$ta”teVVCot:-ktleéslon and the finding that the

._v_con.1pl~ai;giAant A- pet: ‘o:—.«er should approach the Gvtl Court is

ht é5».vt}_ two have given carefui conslderafion to the

VA “~Tf’coVnt*e«ntlons of the learned counsel appearing for the

A’ oéztlttoner and scrutinized the material on record.

V’

7. The material on record would cleady shoaethat

even as per the averments made in the

complainant alleges breach of contract ‘eppioséte–«’

parties. The impugned

Commission is passed in original v”€:o:ri*2pla.ii1i:I_’..’v;$§;’23/V3930?’VQ

and the order passed by the Stete Cominisisten
in the Writ Petition can’:i:.e_ chaiii-hge;iyi’ytiin__appeai’ before the

1 National Commission in ‘ofV”‘the_\.p”reyrie_ions of Section

19 of the Coneeefier Mm an
effective arid of appeal is
provided’ to ‘to;approech the National
Commieeion.’_ by ‘we do not find any ground

to interfere “with ,tiaeA’tn1p£iVgned order in etacise of writ

of thxis-~<':ourt and accordingly, we hold that

tieefeVis"n:e' this writ petition and pass the foiiowlng

Olideif – L' % L t

2 writ Petition is disposed of reserving Hberty to

' petitioner to file appeal before the National

Commission against the impugned order passed by the

State Commission in complaint No.23/2007 dated

ox'

.11.

02.08.2007. Am the contentions urged in the writ pefitiotf-_

are kept open to be urged before the Appellate Authoflt§;_fi ‘

VYé$/N6} ‘ ;,}’/

_ We5:2..Hofst’ No