DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.793/2009

Sh. Manish Kapoor

RZ-E-79, Street No.3

Nihal Vihar

New Delhi-110041                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.      Arena Animation

          F-35, A Campus

          Behind HSBC Bank & Nalli

          South Extension Part I

          New Delhi-110049

2.      Arena Animation

          B1/628 Near Metro Pillar No.570

          Janakpuri, Delhi-110058

3.      Arena Animation (H.O.)

          Aptech House, A-65 MIDC

          Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093                   …...Opposite Parties

Date of Institution             :    Nov.  2009

     Date of Order                :   20.05.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he took admission in Animation and Multimedia course known as ‘AAAP’ (Arena Animation Academy Specialist Program) in OP No.2 which is a centre of OP No.3 which was to be completed in five semesters and the  first semester was to be commenced on 22.06.07. The total fee of the course was Rs.1,46,608/- and he paid Rs.21000/- on 22.06.07 and the remaining amount was to be paid by way of 14 installments of Rs.8933/- each starting from 10.07.07 till 10.08.07. He paid all the 14 installments of Rs8933/- each on the due dates. Each semester was for a duration of 3 months and thus he was given to understand that the said 15 months’ course was the best in animation course and after completion of the course he would get very gainful employment. However, the OPs did not finish the course though it should have been finished in the month of August, 2008 and he was told that it will take near about 6  months more to finish the course in question.  Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 & 2 the Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing direction to the OP No. 2 & 3 to refund the fees alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, to pay to him Rs.80,000/- for harassment and mental tension and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. 

Neither any written statement/reply has been filed on behalf of the OP No.1 & 3 nor any formal order has been passed against them.

OP No.2 in its reply has inter-alia stated that complainant wanted that semester-III class should be taught in details as he wanted to make his carrier in 3D which is the main software of semester- III because of which semester-III got delayed. Semester-IV started on 02.03.09 as the complainant wanted only 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. daily batch due to his job and he was ready to wait till a new batch was to be allotted.  The OP No.2 had even offered him other batch for semester-IV but he opted for 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. batch only because of this reason, there was a delay.  The complainant was offered another batch but he did not opt to join another batch because of his job and opted for morning shift only. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed a one page rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in written statement.

The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Pramod Aggarwal, Prop. of OP No.2 has been filed in evidence.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and the OP No.2.

We have heard the Counsel for the OP No.3 and have also gone through the file very carefully.

None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant. We directed issuance of notice to him. Notice issued to him through dispatch No.749 dated 18.04.17 has been served upon him vide track report Mark A for 18.05.17 but none has appeared on his behalf.

It is clear from the record that the complainant had attended classes for a period of 2 years and 4 months.  The period of 15 months already given by the OPs for completion of the course in question had already expired.  Therefore,  with his own consent and will the complainant had opted to attend the classes even after the expiry of the period of 15 months. Therefore, if  the OP No.2 was going to take 6 months more for finishing the course for one reason or the other or for the reason assigned by the OP No.2 and not specifically denied by the complainant there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, we hold that the OP No.2 & 3 are not guilty of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

         Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 20.05.17.