Orissa

Khordha

CC/15/2020

Shunyabasi Behera.The Deputy General Manager, of M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bansal Classes. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

Complainant is present in person. Heard on the question of admissibility of the complaint and perused the record. 

 

          It is submitted by the complainant that on 22/07/2018, he got his son Manas Kumar Behera, enrolled in Bansal Classes, Jaydev Bihar, Bhubaneswar and deposited an amount of Rs.38,500/-  by cheque on 03/08/2018 in favour of  Heritage Vision Education towards school fees and Rs.43,425/- by cheque on 08/08/2018 in favour of Bansal Edu-venture LLP, Bhubaneswar towards coaching fees. After attending 19 classes the complainant observed that Bansal study materials are being taught instead of CBSE pattern and even though it was assured at the time of admission that the teaching shall be CBSE pattern and all faculty members of the coaching centre are IITians. Also there was lack of teaching skill and infrastructure facilities. The complainant requested the coaching centre to allow his son to attend classes in  Prabhuji English Medium school, VSS Nagar,  with whom there was internal arrangement for teaching as per CBSE syllabus. The Principal of the coaching centre assured him to look into the matter but subsequently  did not do anything. Therefore, the complainant demanded refund of the amount deposited by him and after his repeated e-mails and letters the coaching centre refunded  the school fees of  Rs.38,500/- paid to Heritage Vision Education Trust, but did not refund the coaching fees of Rs.43,424/- paid to Bansal Eduventure LLP, Bhubaneswar. Therefore, he filed the present complaint praying for refund of the amount.

 

          But in this regard, we first of all,  find that there are no such specific averments made in the complaint petition disclosing the  above factual aspect of the case as  submitted by the complainant.  In absence of any specific pleading to this effect in the complaint petition,  the case cannot run and in such situation the supporting documents filed along with the complaint petition would be of no avail to the complainant in view of the settled principle of law that evidence beyond pleading cannot be looked into.    Also there is nothing on record to reveal what sort of  study pattern was promised / assured to be given to the student.  Further more, the complainant claims refund of the coaching fees of Rs.43,424/- paid by cheque in favour of Bansal Eduventure LLP, Bhubaneswar. But as a matter of fact, the said   Bansal Eduventure LLP, Bhubaneswar, has not been arrayed as Opp. Party in this case in whose absence, the case cannot proceed. Para-3 of the complaint petition reveals that deficiency in service is lack of teaching skill and lack of infrastructure and non-teaching as per CBSE pattern as promised but there is absolutely no document filed along with the complaint petition in proof of the same.   Merely because the teaching was not   of CBSE pattern,  it does not,  in our opinion, make out a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  in absence of any specific evidence / document  to show that the CBSE pattern teaching was promised / assured at the time of admission. The sole OP in this case is Bansal Classes but documents do not reveal the existence of any such Institution / Organization and its liability to refund the amount paid to the Bansal Eduventure LLP.  

 

 

In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has got no cause of action  against the present OP i.e. Bansal Classes to file this complaint claiming refund of money.

 

          As such,  we  do not find any sufficient reason in the instant case to proceed with the complaint  against the OP and therefore, the  complaint is rejected U/s 12(3) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

      

 

Member                                   Member (W)                            President