Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/316

Narinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Addictive Learning Technology Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Satnam Singh

02 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                   Consumer Complaint No: 316 dated 01.08.2023.                    Date of decision: 02.09.2024.

 

Narinder Pal Singh S/o. S. Bohar Singh, R/o. H. No.1706/628, St. No.4, Preet Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana-Mob. No.98147-30011.                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

The Director, Addictive Learning Technology Pvt. Ltd., (Law Sikho), 576, Vyapar Kendra Rd, Block-C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana-122002.                                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Satnam Singh, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the complaint are that on allurement and representation of the OP, the complainant got ready to do online Diploma Course namely Diploma in corporate litigation (Batch Feb-23) on payment of full fee Rs.58,250/- to be refunded, if the complainant is not satisfied from their online study system. The complainant stated that the OP took all the fee of Rs.58,250/- but only gave two invoice i.e. Rs.3,000/- vide invoice No.LS-2022-23/12865 dated 06.02.2023 and Rs.48,707/- vide invoice No.LS-2022-23/13581 dated 13.02.2023. Even the payment of Rs.55,250/- was made by the complainant through credit card. When the complainant joined their online classes, it was totally dis-satisfactory regarding which the complainant gave feedback many times but the OP kept on assuring to improve the deficiencies. The complainant further stated that when he found no progress and improvement in the study system of the OP, he requested for refund of fee on 04.04.2023 and secondly on 12.04.2013 within stipulated period of 30.03.2023 to 13.04.2023. However, the OP delayed the mater and lastly refused to refund the fee. The complainant served a legal notice dated 21.06.2023 post on 26.06.2023 upon the OP through Sh. Satnam Singh, Advocate but to no effect. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to refund of Rs.58,250/- along with compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OP did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2023.

3.                In support of his exparte claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of his Aadhar Card, Ex. C2 is the copy of tax invoice dated 06.02.2023 of Rs.3000/-, Ex. C3 is the copy of tax invoice dated 13.02.2023 of Rs.48,707/-, Ex. C4 is the copy of Email dated 12.04.2023, Ex. C5 is the copy of legal notice dated 21.06.2023, Ex. C6 is the postal receipt, Ex. C7 is the copy of screen shot of payment of Rs.55,250/- and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                In the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for refund of entire fees i.e. Rs.58,250/- deposited with the OP and also claimed compensation of and litigation expenses. The complainant claimed to have deposited the said amount with the OP to get online Diploma course namely Diploma in Corporation Litigation (Batch Feb-23). However, in Manu Solanki & Others Vs Vinayaka Mission University I(2020) CPJ-210 (NC) it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the education is not a commodity and further that the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. It has further been held that any defect/deficiency in conferring of a degree/diploma, marks, certificates which may arise during course of imparting of education does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held that only exception is coaching centers. However, the OP is an educational institution, primarily meant for imparting education cannot be said to be providing services to the student. Therefore, the complainant being a student cannot be said to be a consumer nor can it be envisaged that the OP has been providing any kind of services to the complainant. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant in the capacity of a student is not covered under the definition of consumer qua the OP.

6.                Further in LBS Group of Education Institute Vs Arjun Singh and others 2021(1) CPJ 151, it has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the institution rendering education including vocations course and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport etc. except coaching institutions will not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that the complainant does not fall within purview of a consumer and therefore, the present complaint cannot be said to be maintainable as against the OP.      

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                 (Sanjeev Batra)        

                    Member                                                President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.09.2024.

Gobind Ram.