JUDGMENT - Per Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Nagpur dated 14-7-1992 passed in Complaint No. 387 of 1991. We have heard Ms. Rao, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The shortly stated facts giving right to the complaint before the District Forum Nagpur are that Shri Sushant Rode sought admission to the first year of engineering on 3-7-1990 in the private Engineering College run by Opposite Party No. 1. The complainant was granted provisional admission on 10-7-1990 and paid admission fee of Rs. 8,800/- and security deposit of Rs. 2,000/-. According to complainant he was also granted admission on 8-9-1990 in the Laxminarayan Institute of Technology on payment of Rs. 689/- and was therefore requested the opposite party to refund his fee and deposit paid on 10-7-1990. It is also alleged by the complainant that in his place the Opposite Party No. 1, admitted one Shri Sunil R. Dokaniya and received from him necessary fees vide receipt No. 8237. The appellant therefore alleged in this appeal that since the respondent No. 1 failed to render any service, he is entitled to refund the fees. The District Forum Nagpur relying on the Government Resolution No. TED/1086/209478(2448) dated 16th August, 1988 rejected the complainant's claim and dismissed his complaint. 3. We have perused a letter of provisional admission granted to the appellant by the respondent No. 1 on 3-7-1990. In the said letter, a promise has been given by the principal of respondent No. 1 that on production of evidence about subsequently obtained admission in Engineering or Medical College through the Government of Maharashtra agency, the appellant will be refunded the full remittance within 7 days. The appellant has been admitted in Laxminarayan Institute of Technology. The said institute is running by the Nagpur University and the admission are made through the Government of Maharashtra agency. In view of this fact, since the appellant was granted the admission in LIT on 8-9-1990, he is entitled to receive full remittance as promised by the principal of respondent No. 1 in his letter dated 3-7-1990. Consequently we find that the question of interpretation of Government of Maharashtra Circular mentioned above does not arise. It is further found that the appellant was granted a provisional admission and he had not required to have any education in the institute of respondents. Consequently we find that the question of interpretation of Government of Maharashtra Circular mentioned above does not arise. It is further found that the appellant was granted a provisional admission and he had not required to have any education in the institute of respondents. Moreover, we find that the seat of appellant did not remain vacant as the same was filled in through the admission of one Shri Sunil R. Dokaniya. In view of this circumstances, in our view the District Forum has wrongly rejected a complaint of the complainant. 4. This Commission in the case of (Abel Pacheco Gracies v. Principal, Bharati Vidhya Peeth College of Engineering, Pune)1, 1992(I) C.P.J. 105 has taken the view that the student is a consumer of service of educational institute and he is entitled to refund of fee if no services are rendered by the educational institute. We had also on occasion to interpret the Government of Maharashtra circular in that complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the impugned order of the District Forum Nagpur is contrary to the facts and law and therefore requires to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER Appeal is allowed. This impugned order is set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directing to refund to the appellant Rs. 8,800/- towards fee and Rs. 2,000/- toward caution money deposit with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 3-7-1990 till realisation. The rest of the claim of the appellant is rejected. The appellant be also paid Rs. 500/- as cost of this appeal. Appeal allowed. *****