JUDGMENT : D. S. THAKUR, J. 1. This is an appeal in terms of Section 17 of the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 against the judgment and award dated 18.02.2010, passed by the J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (in short “Commission”), whereby an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization has been awarded. Besides this, the Commission has also awarded exemplary compensation amounting to Rs. 10 lacs for the loss of one academic year of the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:- 3. A complaint came to be filed by the complainant-respondent herein against the appellant, wherein it was alleged that the complainant was duped by making false representations and allurements that he would be subjected to a comprehensive training for obtaining the Commercial Pilots License. It was alleged that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid as admission fee and subsequently an amount of Rs. 56,000/- was paid as ground school fee, instead of the actual Rs. 45,000/-, which was supposed to be charged on that account. It was thus alleged that the appellant had retained Rs. 11,000/- fraudulently. Besides this, it was also alleged that another Rs. 25,000/- was charged as a “letter of acceptance fee”. Total amount paid was Rs. 96,000/- by the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant joined the course in Delhi from 10th July, 2008 for a period of 35 days, during which he was subjected to a medical examination on the instructions of the appellant. 4. It was alleged that the complainant became suspicious about the genuineness of the course, inasmuch as, after the completion of 35 days a certificate was issued to him in which the date was reflected as 4th June, 2008, which was contrary to the record, inasmuch as, the complainant had been enrolled for training on 9th of July, 2008. It was also urged that the institute of the appellant was not approved by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), New Delhi, nor was it registered under the Private Carriers Act. 5. The complainant further alleged that the appellant further misrepresented and misguided the complainant by informing him of the date of conduct of the Student Pilot License Examination (SPL) on 24th February, 2009. 5. The complainant further alleged that the appellant further misrepresented and misguided the complainant by informing him of the date of conduct of the Student Pilot License Examination (SPL) on 24th February, 2009. It was alleged that the appellant had given the contact number of one, namely, Madan Sharma, who on being contacted informed the complainant that the exam had already been conducted and would be held yet again somewhere in September, 2009. It was alleged that subsequently the complainant protested before the appellant was on realizing its mistake refunded an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. It was thus alleged that out of an amount of Rs. 96,000/-, only Rs. 25,000/- was refunded, leaving a balance of Rs. 71,000/-, which remained to be paid. It was in those circumstances that a complaint came to be filed, in which the following claims were made:- (i) Amount spent during ground training classes for accommodation, meal and transportation Rs. 20,000/- (ii) Amount spent on medical tests and consultancy fee. Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Travelling charges from Udhampur to Delhi, Delhi to Udhampur, including railway tickets from Jammu to Aligarh and Delhi to Udhampur. Rs. 12,000/- (iv) Balance amount of total Rs. 96,000/- retained by O.P. Rs. 71,000/- + @ 18% per annum. (v) Exemplary compensation Rs. 10.00 lacs (vi) Counsel fee and litigation expenses Rs. 75,000/- (vii) Other misc. expenses which includes telephone charges, postal charges etc. Rs. 10,000/- 6. The Commission finally appears to have passed an ex parte judgment and award and directed relief of an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- along with interested @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Besides this, an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs as exemplary compensation for loss of one academic year. Litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded. 7. In the present appeal, the appellant states that an ex parte judgment and award passed by the Commission was required to be set aside for the simple reason that the appellant was never served in the course of proceedings before the Commission. It was also stated that the award even otherwise, on the face of it is untenable in law and contrary to the facts of the case alleged, besides being excessive. It was also stated that the award even otherwise, on the face of it is untenable in law and contrary to the facts of the case alleged, besides being excessive. It was urged that the award infact amounts to undue enrichment of the complainant and has been passed without adopting any established principle, which is otherwise applicable for granting compensation. 8. On a perusal of the record of the Commission, it appears that notices were served on the appellant through Registered AD. Receipt of the registered letter on record contains the same address, which is reflected by the appellant in the present appeal. Moreover, the acknowledgment card also contains the signatures of one Sapna, who also has been shown to be a signatory on the receipt dated 12th July, 2008, whereby an amount of Rs. 15,000/- had been received for and on behalf of the appellant as admission fee. The said Ms. Sapna has been shown as an authorized signatory of the appellant. Documents on record, therefore, suggest that the service was duly effected and the assertion that the appellant had no knowledge or were not served is an argument, which is untenable in the light of the aforementioned facts. 9. Admittedly, the complainant had undergone the course for a duration of 31 days out of the 35 days, for which a certificate was also issued in his favour. The complainant, had alleged that the institute being run by the appellant did not have proper recognition or was not registered in terms of the relevant Act. The assertion made by the complainant on affidavit before the Commission with regard to the institute not being properly registered in terms of the relevant Act have remained unrebutted. Even today, the appellant is not in a position to satisfy us that there was no requirement at all to get the institute of the appellant registered under the relevant Acts. 10. However, we feel that other than ordering the refund of the admission fee and the ground school fee, as also the litigation charges, the award of the Commission to the extent it awarded an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs appears to be much on the higher side. 10. However, we feel that other than ordering the refund of the admission fee and the ground school fee, as also the litigation charges, the award of the Commission to the extent it awarded an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs appears to be much on the higher side. There was no cogent material placed on record to show precisely how the complainant had suffered the loss of one year of his academic curriculum especially in view of the admission made by counsel for the respondent that the complainant had not taken the Student Pilot License Examination even in the month of September, 2009. 11. Notwithstanding the above, learned counsel for the appellant, has agreed to refund an amount of Rs.71,000/- received by the institute as ground school fee along with interest on the said amount @ 9% as awarded, besides, an amount of Rs.1.00 lac as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. It is stated that the amount has been deposited in the Registry of this Court. We feel that the aforementioned amount would be sufficient to compensate the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment and award shall stand modified accordingly. 12. The Registrar Judicial is directed to release the amount, as determined hereinabove and refund the balance amount in favour of the appellant. 13. Disposed of accordingly along with connected IAs.