BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                 

Dated this the 12^th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

  SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

  SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G              : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.27/2013

(Admitted on 19.01.2013)

Mr. D.V. Akarsh,

S/o Virupaksha,

Aged 17 years,

Minor represented by his father and natural

Guardian Virupaksha

Residing at III.26A NITK campus,

Shrinivas Nagar Post,

Surathkal, Mangalore.

                                                                   ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri PMM)

VERSUS

1. Boscoss Tutorials Pvt. Ltd.,

    Near Sharada Vidyalaya, Kodialbail,

    Mangalore  represented by Principal.

2. The Principal,

    Boscoss Tutorials Pvt Ltd.,

    Near SharadaVidyalaya, Kodialbail,

    Mangalore  575 003.

                                                 ..........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1 & No.2: Sri GP)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claims he got admitted to opposite parties coaching institute on 20.6.2012 for admission for 1^st year PCMC for 2012.13 and complainant’s father paid Rs. 16,854/  by way of cheque. Due to personal family problems and complainant’s health problem he could not attend opposite party coaching class. When complainant’s father approached opposite party for refund evasive reply was given.  Even though letter written by complainant’s father and also to legal notice. Hence seek refund of the fee paid with compensationfor mental agony and suffering and other relief as prayed.

II.     Opposite party filed version denying the allegation and admitting the amount paid by complainant’s father of Rs. 16,854/  At the time of admission itself it was made clear that the course fees is inclusive of service tax and once paid cannot be refunded and also contended that as the fee paid already utilized for payment of tutors and including service tax.   Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

2.     In support of the above complainants Mr. Virupaksha filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C4 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. Sunita Menezes (RW1) Manager, Boscoss Tutorials, also filed affidavit evidence and not answered the interrogatories served on her.

In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

               Point No. (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Affirmative

              Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   The complainant the consumer as a student to the tuition class conducted by opposite party paid fee of Rs.16,854/ was paid to opposite party by means of cheque by complainant’s father is not in dispute.  Opposite party the service provider also admits that the complainant did not attend the classes but dispute liability to refund the fee paid as utilization of the funds for payment to tutors and other purposes.  As such there is live dispute between the parties namely the consumer the complainant and the opposite parties the service provider as contemplated under C P Act. Hence answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No.(ii): Ex.C1 is the letter written by complainant’s father which is dated 8.8.2012 he mentions though his son D.V Akarsh was got admitted to the opposite party tutorial for coaching class for first PUC (PCMC) due to unhealthy and other personal reasons, he could not attend the coaching classes sought refund of fee amount of Rs.16,854/ paid.  Ex.C3 is a studying certificate issued by the Principal, M. Krishna Pre University collage, Hassan in respect of complainant it is dated 3.10.2012.  As opposite party did admit as it is not disputed the allegation the complainant he never attending the classes of course one Sunita Menezes, Manager of opposite party did file affidavit evidence supporting the written version filed in the case.  However to the interrogatories submitted by the complainant this RW1 has not answered to the interrogatories.  This shows there is no admissible evidence on the part of opposite party to support the claim made in the written version. As such considering that complainant did not attend their tutorial classes conducted by the opposite party, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not refunding the fee paid by the complainant when admittedly complainant did not attend the coaching classes.    Hence we answer Point No.2 in the affirmative.

2.      In this case even though opposite party mention of payment of servicer tax and the receipt issued to the complainant shown as including service tax the Xerox copy of the receipt produced to the complainant does not make mention of the registration number under the Service Tax.  In fact opposite party also did not produce any document to show it had paid service tax in respect of amount paid by the complainant.  Hence we are of the opinion that opposite party shall directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.16,854/ to complainant and also shall directed to pay Rs.15,000/ to complainant as compensation with cost of the  litigation. Advocate fee fixed at Rs.1,000/

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

     The complaint is allowed with cost.  Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.16,854/ (Rupees Sixteen thousand Eight hundred Fifty Four only)  with interest at 9% per annum from 8.8.2012 i.e. the date of Ex.C1 till the date of payment. Opposite parties shall also pay Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant .

2.     Advocate fee fix at Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only).

3.     Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 12^th January 2017)

             MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

  (SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)            (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum               D.K. District Consumer Forum

  Additional Bench, Mangalore                Additional Bench, Mangalore 

               MEMBER

(SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)

D.K. District Consumer Forum

Additional Bench, Mangalore 

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Virupaksha

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Letter dated 8.8.2012 (Copy) written by the complainant to opposite party

Ex.C2: Lawyer s notice dated 5.10.2012 (Office copy)

Ex.C3: Original study certificate issued by M. Krishna, Pre-University College

Ex.C4: Reply Notice dated 7.11.2012 issued on behalf of O.P

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mrs. Sunita Menezes, Manager, Boscoss Tutorials

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 12.01.2017                                       PRESIDENT