O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant in the month of September 2014 contacted the OP through a known person for advance level professional training in paining and designing programme. It is alleged in the complaint that OP showed her fee structure for such training which was Rs.25,000/- for the whole course, for duration of six months with weekends classes. It is further alleged in the complaint that after negotiation, the fee was settled at Rs.22,000/-. Out of which the complainant on 18.9.2013 paid Rs.6,000/- vide account payee cheque in her favour and further paid Rs.10,000/- in cash in the first week of October 2013. It is alleged that no receipt was issued for the payment of Rs.6,000/- or Rs.10,000/-. It is further pleaded in the complaint that from October, 2013, the OP started giving classes to the complainant till March 2014 and gave only five classes. Thereafter, the OP refused to give any more classes to the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that in the month of July, 2014, the complaint alongwith one Sh. Ved who is known to both the parties, visited the house of OP and made complaint to her regarding the conduct. It is also pleaded in the complaint that on great persuasion and meetings with the mediator, the OP gave an old painting in lieu of the refund of money. The complainant was shocked to see that the painting which was given by the OP was broken and damaged and was not worth for even Rs.500/- in the market. The complainant has also alleged that the OP has committed cheating and is liable for prosecution. Legal Notice dated 14.9.2014, reply by the OP and Rejoinder to the reply have been filed alongwith complaint as Annexures A, B & C. The complainant by way of this complaint is claiming the refund of Rs.16,000/- paid by her alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering etc.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP who has filed its written statement. The OP has denied all the allegations made in the complaint. However it has admitted the receipt of Rs.6,000/- vide cheque from the complainant. The OP has pleaded in the complaint that OP started giving classes to the complainant and other students from first week of October, 2013 but it is denied that the she did not give classes to the complainant. It has been pleaded that regular classes were given to other students in the same batch but the complainant due to the reasons best known to her stopped attending the classes. It is further stated in the written statement that after completing all the classes and courses undertaken by the OP to her students, she stopped taking further classes as she and her family intended to shift to Noida. It has also been pleaded in the reply that the OP has given a painting on credit of one month, which was worth Rs.20,000/- and the complainant is being sued for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.18,000/- and the cost of painting i.e. Rs.20,000/- In nutshell, the OP has denied all the averments made by the complainant in the complaint except receipt of Rs.6,000/- by cheque.
3. We have carefully scrutinized the complaint, replies and other documents placed on the file. We have also gone through the legal notice, reply and rejoinder exchanged between the parties. There are on the same lines as that of complaint and replies filed in this Forum. The complainant as well as the OP has filed their affidavits in support of the complaint and the reply reiterating the contents of the same.
4. The complainant has not placed on record any document to prove the payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash to the OP. Receipt of Rs.6,000/- vide cheque is admitted by the OP. The delivery of painting to the complainant by OP is admitted by the complainant. The complainant has stated in the complaint that she utilized the services of one Sh. Ved as a mediator between the complainant and the OP but the complainant has not filed his affidavit in support of her contentions. The complainant has admitted having taken five classes from the OP.
5. The OP though has pleaded that it has given classes to other students, which were on the same batch but has miserably failed to prove on record any attendance sheet or register maintained by her in respect of the classes being given by her to various other students, which shows that she has stopped giving classes to the complainant.
6. The complete course was for 6 months with weekend classes. It is not in dispute that the complaint took 5 classes instead of 24 classes. The same comes to about 1/4th of the total classes for which she admittedly paid Rs.6000/-. The payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash has not been proved on record. As regards the cost of painting, admittedly received by the complainant, no evidence except affidavit and counter affidavits have been filed on record by the parties. Neither any photographs nor report of any valuer has been filed by both the parties. Nevertheless the painting might be of some value. The value of artistic work such as painting can vary from thousands to lacs. In the absence of specific valuation we assess the cost of the painting at Rs.3,000/-.
7. In view of the above discussions, pleadings and documents filed and relied by both the parties, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be squarely met if the complainant is refunded a sum of Rs.3,000/- for deficiency in service as the full classes were not given by the OP.
8. The complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony, pain and harassment etc. which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 09th day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
