AI generated image used for representational purposeNEW DELHI: The Jammu and Kashmir state consumer commission has directed Acharya Institute of Technology in Bengaluru to pay Rs 2,27,965 to a Jammu father over a dispute involving his son's admission to the institute. The commission held the institute responsible for the money allegedly kept by two people who helped secure his son's admission. It also allowed the father to withdraw an earlier Rs 1.53 lakh award with interest.What was the dispute over the engineering college admission?According to the commission order, Lakhinder Singh Sambyal paid Rs 2.80 lakh to respondent No. 3 to get his son, Dhananjay Singh, admitted to Acharya Institute of Technology. He also paid Rs 10,000 as commission to respondents No. 2 and 3. This took the total amount paid to them to Rs 2.90 lakh. Dhananjay later paid Rs 1,03,350 as tuition fees and Rs 25,000 for hostel expenses directly to the institute. The institute issued receipts for these payments.Lakhinder said respondents No. 2 and 3 did not deposit the Rs 2.90 lakh admission fee with the institute. His son was later stopped from appearing for his first-term examination because the admission fee had not been paid. He then had to leave the institute. With the help of police, Lakhinder and his son recovered Rs 2 lakh from respondents No. 2 and 3. The remaining Rs 90,000 was not recovered.The complainant and his son then approached the consumer commission. They sought Rs 8,08,350, which included the Rs 90,000 that was still unpaid, Rs 1,28,350 paid towards tuition and hostel fees, Rs 90,000 spent on repeated trips to Bengaluru, Rs 5 lakh for the trouble and harassment they faced, and interest.The commission had earlier, on June 18, 2019, directed the institute to pay Rs 1,53,000. This included Rs 1,03,350 towards the tuition fee paid to the institute and Rs 50,000 for the trouble, harassment and legal and other expenses faced by the father and son. The institute had not appeared before the commission at that time and the order was passed without hearing its side.The complainant then challenged the amount awarded before the Jammu and Kashmir high court. The high court allowed them to withdraw the Rs 1.53 lakh deposited by the institute, but said they would have to return the money if the case was later decided against them. The high court sent the remaining part of the case back to the consumer commission for a decision.Respondent No. 2 died while the consumer commission was hearing the case. Respondent No. 3 also did not appear despite a notice being published in a local newspaper and was later proceeded against ex parte.The institute later asked the commission to allow it to file a fresh written statement, saying it had not been properly served when the case was first decided. The commission rejected the request, saying the high court had sent the case back only to decide the remaining Rs 90,000 claim and the interest.What did the commission say while holding the institute responsible?The bench comprising President Nighat Sultana and Member Maheep Gupta said the institute could not reopen the entire case because the high court had sent it back only to decide the remaining claims. It also pointed out that the institute had appeared before the high court and had deposited the earlier Rs 1.53 lakh award.“It is a settled legal preposition that the scope for adjudication in case of remand gets narrowed down to the issues left open by the higher court either expressly or impliedly. We are of the considered opinion that the hon’ble high court had remanded back the case to us for the limited purpose of adjudication on the remaining claims of the complainants viz., the differential amount of Rs.90,000/- and the interest component. It is not permissible to restart the trial by according an opportunity to the O.P. to file fresh written statement. Definitely, the O.P. reserves a right to make his independent arguments on the basis of the material already lying in the file but in no case can he be allowed to file fresh written statement &/or plead anything beyond the material already lying in the file,” the commission said.The commission also rejected the institute's claim that it had no connection with respondents No. 2 and 3. It said the institute would not have admitted Dhananjay if it had not been assured that the admission fee had been paid through respondent No. 3. The commission therefore found that the institute and the two individuals had some arrangement between them and that the two individuals were acting on behalf of the institute.“We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the O.P. 1 & rest of the O.P.s were definitely having some type of tie-up arrangement amongst themselves wherein O.P. 2 & O.P. 3 were acting as agents of O.P. 1,” the commission added.The commission then held the institute responsible for the money that was still due from the other two respondents. After removing the Rs 10,000 claim against respondent No. 2, who had died, Rs 80,000 remained to be recovered.“We are also of the considered opinion that the O.P. 1 is vicariously liable for any recovery to be made from rest of O.P.s and therefore direct O.P. 1 to pay Rs. 2,27,965/- to the complainants, calculated as under,” the bench concluded.The commission added Rs 85,572 for the delay in paying the Rs 80,000 that remained due. It calculated this at 6 percent from October 20, 2008, when the complaint was filed, to August 14, 2026. It also added Rs 62,393 for the delay in paying the earlier Rs 1,03,000 award.The commission directed the institute to pay the Rs 2,27,965 within 30 days. If it fails to do so, it will have to pay additional interest of 6 percent a year on the amount from August 15, 2026 until the payment is made.Lakhinder was also allowed to withdraw the earlier Rs 1.53 lakh deposited by the institute, along with any interest earned on it, if he had not already withdrawn the amount. Both sides were told to bear their own legal costs. The order was passed on August 14, 2026.