Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/327/2018

Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allen Career Institute - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Sharma

01 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/327/2018
Date of Institution	:	10/07/2018
Date of Decision	:	01/11/2018

 

Anil Kumar Sharma, R/o H.No.304, Phase-6, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar – 160059 (Mohali), Punjab.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

Allen Career Institute, SCO 354-355, Sub City Centre, Sec. 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Authorized Representative.

 

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nitin Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant got her daughter namely, Deepanxi Sharma admitted in the OP-Institute in Pre-Medical Enthusiast course of one year by paying an amount of Rs.1,20,650/- on 10.04.2018. The daughter of the Complainant attended the classes from 11.04.2018 to 30.05.2018 (i.e. for 50 days including holidays). During this period, the daughter of Complainant did not find the faculty of the OP-Institute to be upto her expectations, therefore, she requested the Opposite Party to refund her fee after deducting non-refundable service tax for the unattended session of course, but to no success. Eventually, a legal notice dated 02.05.2018 was served upon the Opposite Party, which too failed to fetch the desired results. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 12.09.2018.
3.         Complainant led evidence.      
4.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant.
5.         Significantly, the Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
6.         It is an admitted fact that on 10.04.2018 the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,650/- with the Opposite Party towards full & final fee for the Pre-Medical coaching of one year. It is a fact that the Complainant did attend the said course only for 50 days i.e. from 11.04.2018 to 30.05.2018. Per record, the Complainant had duly intimated the Opposite Party for refund of the balance fee after deducting the non-refundable service tax and unattended sessions of the opted course, but the Opposite Party did not bother to refund the same.
7.         In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that once the Complainant did attend the session for few days only, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party to refund the fees paid, after deducting reasonable charges and non-refundable service tax. It is settled proposition of law that no fee (including advance fee) can be illegally held by the Opposite Party for the period for which no coaching/service is being availed by the Complainant.
8.         It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have refunded the fees after deducting the reasonable charges and non-refundable service tax, which it failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]   To refund Rs.88,203/- (after deducting GST & fee for the period for which the course was attended) to the Complainant;

[b]   To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
01/11/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member		President
“Dutt”