JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Dhule dated 8-4-1991. A complaint filed by the appellant Shri Mohan Siroya alleging the refusal on the part of Principal of opposite party to refund fees has been dismissed by the District Forum, Dhule. 2. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainants' son was granted the admission for engineering course by the principal of opposite party and had collected Rs. 6,300/- for one year tuition fee and Rs. 840/- towards other deposits. The complainant alleged that since his son was admitted in Engineering college at Bombay he had to cancel the aforesaid admission and claim the refund of fee and other deposits from the opposite party. The complainant repeatedly sent the reminders to the opposite party, to redress his grievance of refund of fee and other deposits as his son never received any teaching in their college. However according to the complainant, the opposite party did not care even to acknowledge the receipt of those letter or sent any replies. The District Forum, Dhule dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that in Writ Petition No. 4094 of 1988 the Hon. High Court of Bombay has upheld the action of opposite party in this respect. 3. We have heard Shri Mascarnehens for the appellant and Shri A. Kothari, Advocate for the respondent. In our view, the dismissal of the complaint of the appellant by the impugned order is incorrect and therefore, requires to be set aside for the following reason. 4. The objection of the opposite party that the subject matter having been decided by the Hon'ble High Court Bombay it is not open for the complainant to agitate it again and to give go-bye to the order of the High Court. 5. We have read the oral judgment in writ petition dated 20th October, 1988 mentioned above. High Court rejected the said petition on the consideration of a circular of Government of Maharashtra dated 16th August, 1988 considering the facts and circumstances qua the respondent. The present complainant was not a party in that case. Since the aforesaid order of High Court was based on different set of facts and circumstances it will be wrong to dismiss the complaint of complainant on the ratio of the aforesaid judgment. 6. The present complainant was not a party in that case. Since the aforesaid order of High Court was based on different set of facts and circumstances it will be wrong to dismiss the complaint of complainant on the ratio of the aforesaid judgment. 6. Secondly, it has been contended by the learned Advocate for the opposite party that the complaint was barred by limitation since cause of action arose in the year 1985. Complaint in question was filed on 21-11-1990. In the said complaint, the complainant has alleged that he had made correspondence with the opposite party and since nothing was heard from the opposite party as regards the rejection of his complaint, the cause of action was surviving and therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation. We also find from the record of District Forum, Dhule that the principal of opposite party by a letter dated 24th May, 1991 informed the complainant that his case for refund of fee and other deposits has been finally decided for the reasons stated in that letter. We therefore, find that cause of action for this complaint arose on 24th May, 1991 when the complainants' request for refund of fee and other deposits was rejected. Therefore, a complaint filed on 21st November 1990 is within limitation. We have taken a view in the case of (Abel Pacheco Gracies, Bombay v. Principal, Bharati Vidyapith College of Engineering, Pune)1, reported in Vol. (I)1992 C.P.J. 105. We have also held in that case that the student is a consumer of services where he receives education on payment of consideration. In our view, the ratio of Abel Pacheco's case applies to the facts of this case, and therefore, the complaint of the complainant was wrongly dismissed by the District Forum, Dhule. We had also interpreted in the said order the circular of Government of Maharashtra dated 16-8-1988. We therefore, pass the following order : ORDER Appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum, Dhule is set aside. The opposite party i.e. Principal S.S.V.P. Sanstha, College of Engineering, Dhule is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 7,140/- towards fee and retain only Rs. 100/- towards tuition fee as per circular of Government of Maharashtra. The appellant also be paid the cost of complaint and this appeal amounting to Rs. 500/-. Appeal allowed. *****