DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.05/15
Rakhi Dhawan
951 Skylark Apartments
Plot no.35, Sector-6,
Dwarka-110075
….Complainant
Versus
Art Chocolat
Through Ms. Aarti Dhingra
E-110, G.K. Enclave,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.01.2015
Date of Order : 24.11.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
Facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are:
The complainant Ms. Rakhi Dhawan enrolled herself with Art Chocolat (OP) and paid consideration of Rs.24,100/- for learning chocolate making at professional level. The said course had three levels which commenced on 7th December and was to end on 14th December.
Complainant states that Level-1 of the said course had about 16 to18 people attending it. OP organized this course fairly well and recorded the entire session, the course was organized in a hotel. Proper layout that is hour by hour plans were mailed to the complainant well in advance. It is averred that upon attending Level-2 of the said course Complainant was surprised that OP neither handed over the Course Layout nor covered entire syllabus as mentioned in the website. Level-2 of the course was taught and haphazardly. The Level-2 of the said course was attended by only two people. In liquor chocolate class, OP’s teacher Ms. Aarti Dhingra consumed liquor and wasted whole day with less of practical and more of verbal explanation of important recipes. Complainant submits that she got late in one or two classes as OP kept frequently changing its location. It is stated that the complainant frequently protested and objected towards the approach of teaching by OP but all her complaints fell on deaf ears. Once while the class was going on the teacher concerned was more interested in fulfilling the third party orders rather than teaching. The complainant also felt embarrassed and unhappy attending classes in the parental house and residence of in-laws OP. It is next stated that the complainant was verbally abused in the last class which was held on 14.12.2014 as she had asked OP to provide quality level of teaching. Complainant was also not given certificate for the said course.
Aggrieved by the deficient service and untrade fair practice of OP Complainant approached this Commission with a prayer to direct OP to refund Rs.24,100/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. and Rs.75,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and humiliation.
OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complainant joined OP for some courses at the professional level and others at the Amateur and Intermediate levels. The complainant not only reviewed the OPs website but also visited the facebook page and sort clarifications about the said courses over the telephone before attending them. Each course, that the complainant registered for, had a distinct name, schedule and fee, which the complainant was clearly aware of. This information was also specified on OP’s website under each course heading. OP states that for Level-1 programme outline for the course was sent to all candidates as it was a full day programme which was divided into several sessions- with a registration component, participant introductions, welcome address and a lunch recess. The welcome address and introductions were done to put the candidates at ease as this was there very first face to face interaction.
It is further stated by the OP that the complainant arrived about 2 hours late for the Level-2 course. In spite of this, the instructor put in extra time and effort to review all the important course work to bring the complainant up to pace with her fellow student. The complainant learnt to make specialised chocolates in this class and took these delicious treats home to the delight of her family. The Complainant expressed tremendous pleasure at completing this course and called it ‘fantastic’ in the whatsapp communication attached as Annexure-‘1’ with the reply. There was no requirement of programme outline for level-2 course as it was a short three hour duration course. However, new information in the form of the printed detailed recipe book, with ingredients and step by step instructions of all the recipes covered in the class was provided to the complainant for her convenience. It is next stated that the complainant arrived significantly late in almost all the sessions. In one of the session, the complainant was two hours late for a session whose duration was three hours.
OP next states that the complainant was aware that the classes would be conducted at different venues. The said fact was clearly mentioned on OP’s website and was reiterated to the complainant over the phone. The complainant was comfortable with this fact and therefore, joined the said course. An email communication dated 28.11.2014 attached with the complaint as Annexure-1, Page-12 reads as under.
“The venue information for chocolate making level-1 on 7th December had been updated on the website…….. The other class venues with also be forwarded to you shortly”. It is important to note here that the complainant made the payment after reading this communication further evincing that she was comfortable with multiple venues. It also stated that all venues were in GK with in close proximity (1 KM. radius of each other).
OP has next stated that in Level-1 instructor of OP taught three concepts i.e. single chocolate flower/tick, chocolate hand bunch and chocolate bukke arrangement. Complainant used OP’s material to make the concepts, click pictures accepted the completion certificate and gladly carried all the concepts home. After the course, the complainant posted some of the pictures taken by her during the class and posted them on her Facebook business page th December, 2014 and 27th January, 2015 that after getting the completion of the said course.
OP further states that the complainant in her last class on 14th December, 2014 reached late by more than an hour and demanded the class to be started again. However, OP explained that in the interest of all other students who had reached well on time the class could not be restarted and assured her that the material would be briefed to her on an individual bases at the end of the class. To this the complainant expressed undue dissatisfaction and entered into heated argument with the faculty challenging the ways and means of her teaching. OP tried to pacify her but all in vain. In order to allow the class to the continue OP offered the complainant a proportionate refund of the fee for the balance portion of the course on the condition that she immediately resigned from the course. Complainant accepted the offer and insisted on taking Rs.2,500/- in cash as full and final settlement. It is further stated that the complainant continues to expand her business using the knowledge and services that she gained from OP. It is, therefore, prayed that the present complaint be dismissed.
Evidence by way of affidavit is filed by the complainant and Evidnece of Ms. Aarti Dhingra, Proprietor of Inspiration (Brand Name:Art ChocoLat) on behalf of OP have been filed. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant and OP has requested to consider her Evidence as Written arguments. We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused the material placed. Order. Complainants first grievance that she was lured to pay the full consideration amount of Rs.24,100/- in one go does not seem plausible as OP in its evidence has clearly mentioned that each course that the complainant had registered for had a distinct name, schedule and fee. The said information was also specified on the website of OP under each course heading. Moreover, as the complainant herself submits that the number of students attending the Level-1 were about 16 to 18 whereas the students attending the course for Level-2 were reduced to only 2. This fact clearly shows that each course had different fee structure as some students had opted only for the first level and had paid for the same.
The complainant is also aggrieved on the account that the Level-1 course was organized in a hotel and proper layout i.e. Hour by Hour plans were emailed to the complainant well in advance. Whereas for a Level-2 OP neither did provide any course layout nor it covered the entire syllabus as mentioned in the website. As regards for not providing the layout for Level-2 course OP seems justified as the Level-1 was a full day programme and was divided into several sessions with a registration component, participant’s introduction, welcome address and a lunch recess. Whereas Level-2 was a short three hour class with no session divisions or lunch break. As regards the entire syllabus being not covered by OP it is noticed from the attendance sheet provided by OP and also submitted by the complainant that she arrived late for almost all classes. It is but obvious that if someone arrives late for a particular session the person is bound to miss uncertain things taught in the class.
Complainant cannot hide under the fact that she came late for the classes as OP kept changing the venues. The fact that venues would be different and would be finalized at a later stage was mentioned on the website. The same was also mailed to her in an email dated 28.11.2015 which was acknowledged by the complainant and is attached alongwith her complaint at Page-12.
The whatsapp chats of the complainant attached at Page-10 Ex/DW-1with the evidence of OP very clearly show that the complainant was happy and satisfied with the services provided by OP. As regards the last day of incident the complainant was not happy with the services offered but settled the matter by accepting the proportionate fee of Rs.2500/- without any protest. Having accepted the refund she is estopped from alleging deficiency.
Complainant on her own has admitted to violating the disciplinary norms and reaching late for the class. She has also acknowledged that she got personal attention from her instructor and has received her certificates for Level-2 and Level-3 as well. After having expressed satisfaction about the service of the OP while they were being rendered to her and accepting the balance fee of the course which OP could not provide her, no cause of action lies with the complainant to institute this complaint. The instant case is totally meritless and frivolous. Thus we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.
