BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

22^nd DAY OF JUNE 2020

O R D E R

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

            This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,30,000/- compensation for UPSC coaching duration of 2 years, to return the Lenova Tab and grant such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

Complainant submitted that OP is a registered learning centre for coaching classes.  One Mr.Piyush Anand herein after referred to as counselor was the designated employee of Byjus and the said person is responsible to co-ordinate with a client and deliver good service.  That in the course of complainant subscription to the Byjus-UPSC course module, the counselor assured the complainant’s product cost approximately Rs.45,000/-, considering which a decision was taken to submit complainant LENOVO TAB for the course to be loaded into at Byjus office at Koramangala.  That the Tab was submitted to the OP represented Mr.Fraz Anwar and an initial advance of Rs.8,000/- was made to confirm the complainant interest towards the course.

Complainant further submitted that there was no form of payment receipt provided by the OP representative even upon insisting repeatedly.  That the price of the course mentioned by Mr.Fraz Anwar was a higher than what the counselor had promised.  This issue was conveyed to the counselor following which an assurance was given that it would be handled internally and initially promised the price would be considered.  Trusting the personal documents provided to the counselor, loan was provided by a Byjus affiliated third party company namely EZCRED.

Complainant further submits that the promised course was not delivered on time even though repeated efforts were made to get the course tab.  The counselor was making excuses and did not deliver satisfactory service leading to a loss of many months of preparation time and mental harassment.  The counselor had effectively conceded that it was not feasible to deliver the course for the assured price which implies it was a fraudulent effort by the OP to attract a customer, at the end leading to pathetic service and non-delivery of the assured promises.

Complainant further submits that all efforts to obtain a satisfactory resolution had failed and sufficient time was provided to the OP to take necessary action and ensure customer’s interest were protected.  The complainant has issued a legal notice dated 19.08.2019 calling upon the OP to refund the amount and return the LENOVO TAB within 7 days.  After service of notice OP failed to respond to the notice.  That the multiple attempts were made by the counselor to force the client to send a cancellation request of the product without which the LENOVA TAB would not be returned.  This was done by the OP to pin the responsibility of deficient service and non-delivery of the product to the complainant.

Complainant further submits that the reason for cancellation of the product is due to unresponsive behavior of the counselor and OP, poor service quality, prolonged delay leading to loss of valuable preparation time and constant mental harassment.  That upon further research, it has come to light that 3 documents were to be provided by the OP for signature and approval, which at no stage in the entire duration was mentioned by the counselor.  Also the OP offers its clients with an option for a company representative to visit their home and fill up the required forms for the subscription.  However this was not conveyed by the counselor, who insisted that the complainant has to visit their office to complete the formalities, implying that a lot of the information was fraudulently concealed for unknown reasons.  That OP returned a sum of Rs.8,000/- however another attempt to deduct the monthly installment directly from the bank account has been made by the OP.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part OP.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum.

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Inspite of service of notice, OP remained absent.  Hence OP called out as absent and has been placed exparte.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint.  The complainant has produced documents along with complaint.  Complainant has submitted written arguments.  We have heard the arguments of the complainant and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant scrupulously. 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought for?

2.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Negative

                 Point No.2:  As per the order below

REASONS

7. Point No.1: Complainant in his affidavit evidence submitted that, complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.8,000/- towards OP for subscription of UPSC course.  The complainant further submitted that, he has submitted Lenova Tab to OP to download the course materials.  Till today OP has not return the Lenovo tab.  Hence complainant has lost his carrier.  The complainant further alleged that the OP has charged higher rate than the promised rate.  Hence complainant filed this complaint against deficiency in service on the part of OP and sought for return of Lenova Tab.

8. To substantiate his contention complainant has produced bank statement, photos, fine receipt of traffic police.  On perusal of the Ex-A1 it clearly shows that the complainant has paid an advance amount of Rs.8,000/- to OP.  Further on perusal of the photos of Lenovo tab and fine receipt of traffic police, it does not prove that the complainant has handed over the Lenova tab to OP.  Further there is no iota of evidence produced by the complainant to prove that he has handed over the Lenova tab to OP for download the course materials.  Hence it is difficult to believe that, complainant has handed over the Lenova Tab to OP.

9. Further as per Ex-A3 complainant has issued a legal notice seeking for refund of the amount and return of Lenova tab.  After receipt of the legal notice, the OP has refunded the amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant.  The self-serving testimony of complainant itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that he was deprived during the said course as a result he could not attend the examination and complete the said course.  Moreover the complainant has not entered any agreement with the OP for the said course.  The complainant has only paid an advance amount and after request made by the complainant for refund of the amount, the OP has refunded the amount.  Hence in our opinion there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as alleged in the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we answered the point No.1 in negative.

10. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:          

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.   Parties to bear their own costs. 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 22^nd day of June 2020)

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.Adithya N.A

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant:

  Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party - NIL

vln*