Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/519/2017

CHAMANDEEP KOUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAVNA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV KUMAR

04 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No.                347/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution       03-12-2016

 Date of Decision           29-06-2018

 

1.Chamandeep Kour(Minor),

D/O S.Gurbaksh Singh.

2.Deepak Singh(Minor)

S/O S.Gurbaksh Singh.

Both Residents of H.No.177,

Near Geeta Mandir,Bakshi Nagar,

Jammu.

Through Natural Mother Bharti Bhat,

W/O S.Gurbaksh Singh

Near Geeta Mandir,Bakshi Nagar,

Jammu.

3.Bharti Bhat

W/O S.Gurbaksh Singh

Near Geeta Mandir,Bakshi Nagar,

Jammu.

 

                                                                                                                                                                Complainants

                    V/S

Ms.Bhavana Sharma,

Director Premier Institute of Education,

38-A/D and 81-A/D,Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite party

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)      President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                              Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar,Advocate for complainanst, present.

Mr.Pranav Kohli,Advocate for OP,present.

    

 

                          

 

                                               ORDER

                        Grievance of complainants, as disclosed in the complaint is that;complainant No.3 approached OP for tuition/coaching of complainant No.1 for Class-8^th and tuition/coaching of complainant for Class-9^th under CBSE Syllabus  of Maharaja Hari Singh Agricultural Collegiate School,Nagbani,Jammu and the OP assured that she had highly qualified staff and Complainants No.1&2 shall get proper education under CBSE pattern.According to complainant No.3 that on the assurance of OP,complainant deposited Rs.30,000/-for tuition/coaching of complainant No.1 for class-8^th and Rs.30,000/-for tuition/coaching of complainant No.2 for Class-9^th on 11-04-2015(Copy of receipt is annexed as Annexure-A).Allegation of complainant No.3 is that to the utter dismay,the OP has not provided proper education and even no education as per assurance of OP and there was not only a single teacher for CBSE syllabus for class 8^th and Class 9^th where as the OP assured complainants that the institute has a highly qualified staff as such the Op has failed to maintain the standard required to be maintained by her. Complainant No.3 further submitted that complainants No.1&2 came in the institute many times, but no tuition was provided to them, thereafter complainant No.3 applied for refund of amount deposited by the complainants vide application dated 30-04-2016(copy of application is annexed as Annexure-B).Allegation of complainant No.3 is that OP returned sum of Rs.40,000/-through cheques No.076675 and 076676 dated 05-05-2016,but the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-is still not paid by the OP ,which the OP is bound to pay to them. Complainant No.3 further submitted that complainant repeatedly requested OP to pay the balance amount ,but OP refused to pay the balance amount(copy of communication dated 12-08-2018 is annexed as Anexure-C).Constrained by the act of OP,complainant served legal notice to OP through Advocate for refund of Rs.20,000/-(Annexure-D),but the Op despite receipt of notice has not refunded the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and this act of OP constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant No.3 prays for refund of balance amount of Rs.20,000/-and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.60,000/-including litigation charges.

            On the other hand,OP filed objections and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d)of Consumer Protection Act. That the complaint is liable to be rejected as the controversy raised by the complainant involves complicated question of fact and law which requires detail probe by way of details evidence to be produced by both the parties which is beyond the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and is triable by Civil Courts only. The Op admitted to the extent that the complainants approached to OP for Class 8^th and 9^th for CBSE syllabus which is similar for all CBSE schools.It is vehemently denied that the OP ever agreed for tuitions of any particular school. It is submitted that OP Institute is a leading education provider in Jammu and is providing quality education to the aspirants appearing in the competitive exams besides provides tuitions to the classes of different levels, including class 8^th and 9^th in which complainant No.1 &2 study. It is submitted that OP institute is imparting quality and better education and it is not complainant No.1 and 2 who were enrolled in the Op Institute, there were/are many more other students also who are getting their tuitions and are satisfied with the services provided by OP Institute. That it is important to mention here that complainants have joined OP institute on 11-04-2016 and since then they have attended all the classes till 25^th of April,2016 and during this period, proper tuitions were provided to the complainants alongwith other students .It is further submitted that the complainants after reading terms and conditions of Rules and Regulations of admission form and have accepted the same and put their signatures for their enrolment in the class. In terms of Rule 6,Fee once paid, shall not be refunded, but in the case of complainants, taking a lenient view, the Op refunded whole of tuition fee of Rs.40,000/-out of Rs.60,000/-to the complainants and retained only registration fee of Rs.20,000/-i.e.Rs.10,000/-for each candidate. The complainants are not entitled to any more refund and even the amount refunded by the OP to the complainants does not confer any right upon the complainants to claim any more refund.

            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Gurbaksh Singh,Ram Ditta and Ramesh Kumar,respectively.Complainant has placed on record copies of receipt of Rs.30,000/-each, copies of communications exchanged between the parties and copy of legal notice.

                Although OP filed written version, but after availing numerous opportunities failed to lead any evidence,so,the right of OP to file evidence was closed vide order dated,26-03-2018.Therfore,unsubstantiated averments contained in the written version of OP cannot overweigh the evidence lead by the complainant.

               We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

            Briefly stated case of complainant No.3 is that allured by the assurance of OP,complainant deposited Rs.30,000/-for tuition/coaching of complainant No.1 for class-8^th and Rs.30,000/-for tuition/coaching of complainant No.2 for Class-9^th on 11-04-2015,but to the utter dismay, the OP has not provided proper education and even no education as per assurance of OP and there was not only a single teacher for CBSE syllabus for class 8^th and Class 9^th ,whereas , OP assured complainants that the institute has a highly qualified staff as such the Op has failed to maintain the standard required to be maintained by her. Complainant No.3 further submitted that complainants No.1&2 came in the institute many times, but no tuition was provided to them, thereafter complainant No.3 applied for refund of amount deposited by the complainants vide application dated 30-04-2016.Allegation of complainant No.3 is that OP returned sum of Rs.40,000/-through cheques No.076675 and 076676 dated 05-05-2016,but the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-is still not paid by the OP ,which the OP is bound to pay to them. Complainant No.3 further submitted that complainant repeatedly requested OP to pay the balance amount, but OP refused to pay the balance amount. Constrained by the act of OP,complainant served legal notice to OP through Advocate for refund of Rs.20,000/-,but the Op despite receipt of notice has not refunded the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and this act of OP constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

              On the other hand stand of OP is that OP Institute is imparting quality and better education and it is not complainant No.1 and 2 who were enrolled in the Op Institute, there were/are many more other students also who are getting their tuitions and are satisfied with the services provided by OP Institute. That it is important to mention here that complainants have joined OP institute on 11-04-2016 and since then they have attended all the classes till 25^th of April,2016 and during this period, proper tuitions were provided to the complainants alongwith other students.It is further submitted that the complainants after reading terms and conditions of Rules and Regulations of admission form and have accepted the same and put their signatures for their enrolment in the class. In terms of Rule 6,Fee once paid, shall not be refunded, but in the case of complainants, taking a lenient view, the Op refunded whole of tuition fee of Rs.40,000/-out of Rs.60,000/-to the complainants and retained only registration fee of Rs.20,000/-i.e.Rs.10,000/-for each candidate. The complainants are not entitled to any more refund and even the amount refunded by the OP to the complainants does not confer any right upon the complainants to claim any more refund.

                  In order to substantiate her allegations, complainant filed her own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Gurbaksh Singh,Ram Ditta and Ramesh Kumar,respectively. Complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, despite OP was granted ample opportunities to support its version by leading evidence, but it failed to lead iota of evidence in support of its version.Therefore,version of OP went unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated by cogent evidence, so much so, written version filed by OP is also not supported by affidavit of OP,therefore,same being bereft of  legal strength, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

               On the other hand, in support of her allegations that complainant No.3 deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/-each for tuition/coaching of complainant No.1 for class 8^th and tuition/coaching of complainant No.2 for class 9^th under the CBSE syllabus, complainant placed on record copies of receipts of Rs.30,000/-each. At the same time, complainant has also placed on record copies of communications and copy of legal notice and perusal whereof reveals that the complainant repeatedly approached OP for refund of  balance amount of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore we have no reason to discard with the prayer made by complainant for refund of balance amount of Rs.20,000/- in view of supportive material placed on record.

               L/C for complainant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled Guru Nanak Dev University  and Anr.V/S Jagjit Singh and Anr.wherein it has been held as:

                  Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g)-Deficiency in service-Education-Revocation of admission-Huge fee had been deposited-Complainant was not told that admission was provisional-Complaint was also not obliged to refer University calendar-Revocation of admission based on rules of University calendar-Would amount to deficiency in service.

     -For a student to get admission the prospectus is the magna carta.He is to follow the instructions, conditions etc.,which are provided in the prospectus. Otherwise also the prospectus should contain the basic conditions for admission. The student at the tender age cannot be expected to go and read each of the regulations, which are contained in the University calendar, which is also not readily available in the market. In the present case, it was also not mentioned in the prospectus that for eligibility a student should refer to the University calendar. The applications were duly scrutinized by the functionaries of the University and the complainant was granted admission. If at the very threshold the authorities would have told that the complainant was not eligible then he would not have been asked to deposit the fee,etc.and in the present case quite a huge fee was deposited in U.S.Dollars.After all, the University functionaries were also under adut6y to scrutinize the applications carefully. The complainant had not withheld any information or concealed any facts to get admission surreptitiously. If the complainant had been told initially that he was ineligible he might have tried his luck to get admission somewhere else.So,we do not find a force in the argument of the learned Counsel that even if it was not provided in the prospectus the student should have seen the University calendar.

    In the present case, the candidate i.e., the complainant was not told as to why the admission was provisional. Had the complainant been told that his admission is provisional subject to verifying his qualification matter would have been different. In the preset case, as observed above, the complainant did hot hide anything from the University and came forward in the application with all the information and he was admitted and asked to pay the fee,etc.Hence,the University was deficient in rendering service; rather its functionaries were negligent.

                   So legally speaking it is proved from all corners in the case that the complainant has been consumer as per the provisions in the Act and the OP has been proved as deficient in providing adequate and fair service for which the complainant needs to be compensated with adequate compensation. Accordingly the best and befitting course which the Forum feels as adequate step to redress the grievance of complainant,OP is directed to refund balance amount of Rs.20,000/-to complainant. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and also pay Rs.5000/-as litigation charges. The OP shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum.Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

  Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                          President

Announced                                                         District Consumer Forum

29-06-2018                                                                Jammu.

Agreed by                                                               

      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member