College fraud

After admission, the students of Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital found that the college was not affiliated to Magadh University, nor was it recognised by the Dental Council of India. They filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the institution to refund the admission fee with interest, Rs 20,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs to each student. The dental college appealed before the Supreme Court. The apex court dismissed the appeal and held that apart from the expenses incurred, the students lost two valuable academic years. The college’s conduct amounted to “deficiency of service” under the Consumer Protection Act, the court said. Hence, it increased the compensation amount and the cost of litigation by Rs 1 lakh to each student. (Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital vs Bhupesh Khurana)

No dues

An employee of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board was suspended from service following some departmental and criminal proceedings against him. After he was cleared of all charges, he filed a suit claiming back wages. The board resisted and the matter went up to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and thence the Supreme Court. The apex court dismissed the appeal, saying that there was no fixed rule stating that an employee who had been cleared of charges ought to be paid back wages. In fact, in such cases, employers are vested with certain powers to decide if back wages ought to be paid at all and up to what limit. (Babu Lal vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board)

Right punishment

A man who was accused of rash and negligent driving which resulted in a death was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and also fined for the offence. He appealed to the Karnataka High Court. The court maintained that the man had been rightly convicted and fined. But it opined that he did not need rigorous imprisonment. The state appealed to the Supreme Court. The apex court restored the sentence of the trial court and held that the high court should not have waived imprisonment without citing sufficient reasons. (State of Karnataka versus Muralidhar)

SOLON