Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/695

Dr.Neeraj Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akash Institute - Opp.Party(s)

Girish Anmol Sood Adv

17 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:695 dated 15.11.2018               

                                          Date of decision: 17.05.2022

 

Dr.Neeraj Sood son of Dr.R.N.Sood, resident of 1826, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

 

Akash Institute, Opposite PAU, Prem Nagar, Near Petrol Pump, Ludhiana through its Branch Head.

                                                                                      …..Opposite party

 

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Girish Anmol Sood, Advocate

For OP                           :         Ms.Shalini Joshi, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the son of the complainant namely Nikhil Sood joined a preparation course of Non-Medical course with the OP on 12.12.2017. The complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.11,800/- as refundable registration fee which was paid vide cheque No.00000026 dated 12.12.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Model Town, Ludhiana. The course was commenced from 01.04.2018. After the commencement of the course, the OP asked the complainant to pay another sum of Rs.56,503/-. In all, Rs.68,303/- was paid to the OP. However, after attending the course for about a week, the son of the complainant was not satisfied with the teaching style of the faculty members of the OP and left the course. The complainant requested the OP to refund the fee deposited but the OP kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and after repeated requests only offered to refund a sum of Rs.16,000/-. The complainant requested the OP to refund the full amount after deducting 10% of the amount deposited with them but to no avail. Even a legal notice dated 09.08.2018 failed to evoke a positive response from the OP. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed to refund the remaining amount of Rs.62,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and further the OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant’s ward took admission in the institute of OP for First Step Course 2018-2020. The complainant was informed about all the terms and conditions and refund policy of the course and after understanding the same, the complainant paid the fee for the course. The date of commencement of the course was 06.04.2018. The complainant’s ward joined the OP institute and attended the classes till 27.04.2018 and thereafter, the complainant made a request vide application dated 30.04.2018 for withdrawal from the said course and asked for the refund of the amount on the ground that his son was not satisfied with the teaching standard. According to the OP, no one can judge the coaching standard within a period of just one week. However, OP addressed the request and as per the refund policy, a sum of Rs.16,000/- was calculated. However, after adopting the lenient approach, the OP agreed to pay a sum of Rs.27,167/- to the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the same and preferred to file the present complaint. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, OP submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Jitendra Singh Sengar, Assistant Branch Manager-Operations of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, it has been contended by counsel for the complainant that in the written statement, the OP has referred to the refund policy and as per clause 6, the entire tuition fee is refundable if a student of any courses other than short term classroom courses, has discontinued the course within 10 days from the commencement of the course. In the light of this, according to the counsel for the complainant, the OP is bound to refund the entire tuition fee.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP has argued that as per the refund policy of the OP, only a sum of Rs.16,000/- was payable to the complainant but despite that the OP offered/returned a sum of Rs.27,167/-, as stated in the written statement. Counsel for the OP has further contended that the complainant refused to accept the amount of Rs.27,167/-. Counsel for the OP has further contended that even otherwise the ward of the complainant discontinued the course without any rhyme or reason and the coaching provided by the OP is one of the best in the country.

8.                We have weighed the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties.

9.                As per the refund policy reproduced in the written statement, it is clear that there is no refund of registration fee under any circumstances as per clause no.2 of the refund policy. However, clause no.6 of the said policy provides that if a student of any courses other than short term classroom courses, leaves the classes/course in the institute within 10 days from the date of commencement of the classes/course, the entire tuition fee would be refunded. The OP has, however, not given any bifurcation of the amount received from the complainant. The complainant has admitted in para no.1 of the complaint itself that a sum of Rs.11,800/- was deposited as registration fee which was refundable. However, in the fee receipt Ex.C1, there is no mention that the fee would be refundable. If the refund policy reproduced in the written statement is taken into consideration, as per the clause no.6 of the said policy, OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs.56,503/-, as admittedly the ward of the complainant attended the classes for one week and this fact has been admitted by the OP in para no.2 of the preliminary objections of written statement wherein it has been mentioned that nobody can judge the coaching standard within one week of classes.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OP shall refund Rs.56,503/- along with composite compensation and litigation costs of Rs.7000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room. 

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.05.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma