Skip to content


Jyoti Sharma Vs. Kunal Khanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 1253 of 2013
Judge
AppellantJyoti Sharma
RespondentKunal Khanna
Excerpt:
.....of not issuing receipts of money received. contention of the complainant that he had paid an amount of rs.5,000/- in cash for which no receipt was issued. the case of the op/appellant is self contradictory in that the complainant was simply giving his photograph in different poses and had never attended any acting course. op contended that the complainant was sent for audition, but failed in acting. admittedly he did not pay any amount for acting and did not undergo any course in acting. the contention of the op that complainant failed in acting is absolutely false. defence thus raised by the op is devoid of merits. 6. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. the same is dismissed. 7. fdr, if any, deposited by the.....
Judgment:

N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial):

1.This appeal by the OP of case No. 66 of 2012 titled as Kunal Khanna vs. Jyoti Sharma is directed against the order dated 23rdOct., 2013 passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmiri Gate vide which the OP was directed to pay Rs.29,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of Rs.22,000/- i.e. 10.6.2011 till realization. The OP was also directed to pay to complainant Rs.15,000/- for harassment, pain and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation .

2. In brief the complainant who happened to be a student of 20 years of age approached the OP Ms. Jyoti Sharma for career development after being allured by an advertisement given by her. Ms. Jyoti Sharma was running a training institute in the name of Sunrise Training Institute at House No.51/20, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. A job, after requisite training, was also assured. 30% of the salary from his job was to be paid to the OP till the complainant remains in job.

3. Admittedly the complainant paid an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the OP and a combined receipt bearing No.269 dated 10thJune, 2011 was issued to him. Another amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 10thJuly, 2011, but no receipt was issue for the same.

4. On the contrary, the case of the OP is that the complainant was requested to pay an amount of Rs.37,000/- for the preparation of his portfolio. In case a candidate wanted to attend acting classes, he was required to pay separately for that. Contention of the OP is that the complainant failed to pay the amount of Rs.37,000/-. It is also admitted case of the OP that the complainant portfolio was prepared by the OP and he was selected for audition test in Pragya TV channel, Noida. He, however, could not selected due to his poor acting.

5. District Forum observed that an amount of Rs.22,000/- was paid in three installments, whereas the receipt was issued at much later stage on 10.6.2011, which was a combined receipt. It was thus observed that the OP was in the habit of not issuing receipts of money received. Contention of the complainant that he had paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- in cash for which no receipt was issued. The case of the OP/appellant is self contradictory in that the complainant was simply giving his photograph in different poses and had never attended any acting course. OP contended that the complainant was sent for audition, but failed in acting. Admittedly he did not pay any amount for acting and did not undergo any course in acting. The contention of the OP that complainant failed in acting is absolutely false. Defence thus raised by the OP is devoid of merits.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed.

7. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released in his favour and file be consigned to Record Room.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //