DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 142 OF 2017
DATE OF FILING: 21.11.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30.10.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Rana Ghosh, son of Jay Chandra Ghosh of 34, D.N.V Road, Subhasgram, P.O Kodalia, Kolkata – 146.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Smt. Nibadita Halder (Ghosh), wife of Chandan Halder , Director of the Aspirant, An Institute for Competitive Examinations, Sahebpara, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.
2. Smt. Manisha Halder, wife of Palash Ranjan Halder, Director of the Aspirant, An Institute for Competitive Examinations, Sahebpara, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.
3. Mr. Chandan Halder , Father’s name not known, Collector of The Aspirant, An Institute for Competitive Examinations, Sahebpara, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Refusal to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant by the O.Ps’ Institute has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986 ,alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
A B.Sc ,having Master Degree in Computer Application and also having the post of an L.D.C, under the Directorate of Commercial Tax, West Bengal, the complainant once decided to sit for I.A.S examination . To reach that goal, he got his name enrolled as a candidate for the said examination in “The Aspirant “ run by the O.Ps who conned him into believing that coaching per excellence was imparted in their Institute by properly qualified faculties. Total Course Fee was Rs.65000/- for general and optional papers and the duration of the said course was one year. Classes commenced on and from 15.7.2017. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- in two installments as part payment of course fee ; he attended classes from 15.7.2017 to 3.9.2017 and thereafter came to find that the classes were not held as per assurance given by the O.Ps and also that the teaching standard was not up to the mark. So, the complainant withdrew from the Institute and thereafter demanded refund of Rs.30,000/- which was paid by him to the O.Ps. The O.P Institute refused to refund the said amount to the complainant . The complainant now prays for refund of the said amount and payment of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment etc., alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, this case.
O.P nos. 1 and 2 have been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is admitted that the complainant got himself admitted to the Institute and that they have also received Rs.30,000/- as course fee in part. It is further submitted materially by them that the complainant discontinued the classes for two reasons such as (i) he being a Government Servant is not able to attend classes at schedule time and (ii) he is not able to make further payment. According to the O.Ps, the allegation about the manner of classes and standard of coaching are all concocted for the purpose of getting refund of money. The complaint is false, frivolous and fictitious and therefore, it should be dismissed in limini.
O.P-3 has also filed written statement wherein there is no positive case made out except a dollop of denials and conventional technical objections.
Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Has the complainant been able to substantiate deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief / reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led evidences on affidavit which are kept in the record. BNAs filed by them are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1, 2 :
It is admitted fact that the complainant is a Government Servant ,acting in the post of L.D.C under the Directorate of Commercial Tax, West Bengal. Also admitted is the fact that he got himself admitted to the O.P Institute for taking coaching to prepare himself for I.A.S Examination. Further admitted is the fact that he paid Rs.30,000/- to the O.Ps in two installments and also that he attended the classes for two months i.e from 15.7.2017 to 3.9.2017.
Now, the complainant will have to prove his allegation in order to get relief in the case. A twofold allegations has been levelled against the O.Ps by the complainant. These are ; (i) the classes were not held in the O.P Institute as per commitment given by the O.Ps to the complainant and (ii) the standard of coaching is not up to the mark. With these allegations, which are termed by the complainant as deficiency in service, the instant case is filed by the complainant. The burden of proof always lies upon the complainant and it is none but the complainant who will have to substantiate the allegation brought by him.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that the O.Ps gave assurance to hold two classes on Saturday and three classes on Sunday as pleaded in the complaint. O.P nos. 1 and 2 have filed written statement and with the said written statement is filed a copy of Rules and Regulations of the Institute. It is discernable from the said Rules and Regulations that the classes were to be taken on Saturday and Sunday and some holidays ( if possible). There is no mention whatsoever to the effect that a particular number of classes are to be taken on Saturday and Sunday. The complainant should have filed proper documents to prove that the O.Ps assured him to take a certain number of classes on Saturday and Sunday. In absence of such cogent evidence, we feel constrained to say that the complainant has failed to substantiate that the O.Ps gave assurance to him to hold a certain number of classes on Saturday and Sunday. The complainant has failed to substantiate any kind of deficiency in service as alleged by him in the complaint.
A further perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the classes were held by the O.Ps in their Institute and that the complainant also attended the said classes. It is the version of the complainant himself that he attended the classes from 15.7.2017 to 3.9.2017. It is also the version of the complainant that he discontinued the course and did not make any payment of balance amount to the O.P Institute, having seen that the standard of coaching is not up to the mark. The O.Ps have held the classes as per their commitment. It is not the fact that they did not hold classes or that they gave false assurance to the complainant for holding the classes. It is stated by the complainant himself in the petition of complaint that he himself made visit to the Institute and held deliberation with the O.Ps before admission and thereafter he was admitted to the Institute for the coaching. So, it is found that the service was imparted to the complainant by the O.Ps in the manner as promised by the O.Ps . On the other hand, it is found that the complainant is a public servant and that he made only a part payment of course fee. It is contended by the O.Ps that the complainant found it impossible to cope with the time schedule of their classes and therefore, he discontinued classes on his own accord. We find much substance in the contention and hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Now arises the question as to the quality of services. According to the complainant, the quality of coaching was very poor ; it was substandard in nature. That it was of substandard quality is the subjective perception of the complainant himself. A subjective perception is likely to vary from man to man. A person can say that a particular teacher is very good, whereas another person may say otherwise to the effect that the said teacher is not up to his satisfaction. There is no independent cogent evidence on record to prove that the teachers who attended the coaching classes were not having the requisite academic qualification. So, mere averment by the complainant that the standard of coaching was not up to the mark does never establish anything about the quality of the coaching imparted by the O.Ps in their Institute. It does not behoove for a student to criticize the teacher upon his quality . The fact remains that the complainant has obtained the service of the O.Ps for about two months; he received the coaching from the O.Ps from 15.7.2017 to 3.9.2017 . During this period, the complainant is required to pay for the services rendered to him by the O.Ps and for this reason the complainant is not entitled to get any refund as claimed from the O.Ps. The ground cited by the complainant appears to be nothing but subterfuge for taking refund of what he has paid to the O.Ps.
Upon what have been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation and ,therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps ,but without any cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
