BYJUS represented through its Chief Executive Officer V/S Shrimay roy - Consumer Court Case

Orissa

Cuttak

CC/359/2023

Shrimay roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

BYJUS represented through its Chief Executive Officer - Opp.Party(s)

S K Dey & associates

05 Jul 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.359/2023

1. Shrimoy Ray,

Represented through Father Guardian

Kshirod Kumar Ray,

Resident of Plot No.7D/1298,

Sector-9,CDA,Cuttack-753014.

2. Kshirod Kumar Ray,

S/o: Parikhita Ray,

Resident of Plot No.7D/1298,

Sector-9,CDA,Cuttack-753014.

Vrs.

BYJUS represented through its

Chief Executive Officer 2^nd Floor,

Tower D. IBC Knowledge Park,

4/1 Bannerghatta Main Road,

Bangalore-560083.

Branch Manager,

BYJUS 3^rd Floor,

E 53 Chandaka Industrial Estate,

Infocity,Patia,Bhubaneswar-751024 . ...Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Date of filing: 20.10.2023

Date of Order: 05.072024

For the complainant: Mr. S.K.Dey,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps : Mr. S.K.Dwivedy,Adv. & Associates.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that in the month of July,2023 Satya Sahoo the representative of the O.Ps had met complainant no.2 near the Gate of Krishnamurthy World School at Barabati Campus of Cuttack and had canvassed him for enrolling his son who is complainant no.1 in this case; for availing coaching curriculum through Biju’s. On 30.7.2023, the said Mr. Sahoo alongwith other personnels of Biju’s had gone to the house of the complainants and it was decided that complainant no.1 would avail coaching for Mathematics and Science at 8.00 P.M and for English and SST at 9.00 P.M on each alternative day. The coaching curriculum as offered by the O.Ps was of Rs.46,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- required to be paid immediately as advance and the balance amount of Rs.36,000/- was to be paid in 12 instalments which was effective from September,2023 onwards. It was also agreed therein that after observing for 14 days of the programme, the complainants are at liberty to withdraw from the programme and in that case the total money is to be refunded. The complainants were given the Biju’s refund policy vide policy version TNL2022AUGRPV’1. The advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was immediately paid by the complainant no.2 on 30.7.2023 and on 6.8.2023 at about 10 A.M the O.Ps had conducted the orientation programme with complainant no.1. A 10-inch Mobile Data Grey Tablet and SD card were delivered to the complainant no.1 on 7.8.202 but when the complainant no.1 tried to login at the given time slot, the said timing was not allotted as per the subject specifications to complainant no.1 and rather he was asked to seat in a different time schedule i.e. at 4 P.M or 5 P.M or at 6.30 P.M but complainant no.2 had not agreed for such time schedule for which he had contacted one Mr. Sahoo over phone in that aspect. Ultimately, when the agreed time slot was not provided, complainant no.1 had sent mail on 18.8.2023 informing to the O.Ps that he had decided to drop himself from the course and had requested for refund of the money as paid to them. When no action was taken, again on 23.8.2023 another mail for refund of the money was sent by complainant no.1. But no action was taken by the O.Ps in order to refund the advance amount as taken by them till 31.8.2023. Again on 5.9.2023, the matter was reiterated by the complainants with a request to stop the deduction of EMI but despite all these communications, Rs.3000/- was deducted on 19.9.2023 from the Bank of India account of the complainant no.2 vide A/c Number 511810110000871. The complainant no.1 then had sent a letter through speed post to the O.Ps on 1.10.23 demanding refund of all the money taken by them from his father’s(complainant no.2’s) account. Having no other way out, the complainants had approached with their petition before this Commission seeking compensation from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the deficiency in their service and for practice of unfair trade by them and further they have prayed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards their litigation expenses. They have also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with the complaint petition, the complainants have annexed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.

2. Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have admitted to have received an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- out of the agreed amount of Rs.46,000/- and the complainants had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.36,000/- in the agreed EMIs. The complainants were delivered learning programme on 7.8.23 for 10^th grade D-4 CBSE S.D Card May,2024 Standard as per the agreed terms. They had provided 15-day trial period to understand and analyse the services of the programme. The O.Ps have urged through Clause-9 of the said agreement as executed in between themselves and the complainants which is as follows:

“A student/parent may apply for a refund within a period of 15(fifteen) days after delivery of the product. The request shall be made within the end of 15^th day from the delivery of the product through an email to th day onwards, the student/parent, will not be eligible for a refund of the course fee. The decision of the Company regarding the eligibility of a student/parent to claim a refund shall be final and binding. The company will issue refunds for those cases which are eligible for a refund via cheque, NEFT or any other mode that it so prefers. The company is not obligated to refund the amount by cash.”

On 6.8.23 a Welcome class was given to the complainant but on 10.8.23 the complainant had requested for the change in the timings of the classes and the same was effective from 13.8.23. Accordingly, class slot was provided to the complainant no.1 from 8.00 P.M and on 14.8.23 satisfactory resolution was provided by the complainant no.1. The subsequent prayer of the complainants do not fall within the ambit of 15 days return policy of them as because the request for cancellation was not within the stipulated period. Thus, it is prayed by the O.Ps through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed with exemplary cost.

Together with their written version, the O.Ps have also annexed copies of certain documents in order to support their stand.

Complainant no.2, Kshirod Kumar Ray has filed his evidence affidavit in this case but the same when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the averments as made by the complainants in their complaint petition.

3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit filed from the side of complainants as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, It is noticed that infact complainant no.1 Shrimoy Ray had opted for taking coaching from the O.Ps and for the said reason an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 30.7.2023 to one Amit Kumar Mishra who happens to be the agent/staff of the O.Ps. As per the mail dated 1.8.23 sent by the said Amit Mishra to complainant no.2 Kshirod Kumar Ray, they are to provide Biju’s K-10 foundation (Live) course including 1 to 11 points to Shrimoy Ray which are (1) Biju’s Tablet Learning Program, (2) Live Classes (two Teacher advantage), (3) Learn Station,(4) Grade 10, (5) Practise Questions, (6) Mock Tests,(7) Knowledge graph,(8) Quizzes, (9) Student portal to help clear doubts 24x7, (10) Concept clearance using 3D Animations, In-Air Projections and Real-Life examples through National Level Teachers, (11) Personalised Mentor for 1-on-1 attention. As per the copy of the refund policy of the O.Ps, it is categorically mentioned that 100% refund would be made within 14 days of the registration but not thereafter. The same phenomenum is also applicable for device fees and course fees. On 5.11.23, the mail was sent by complainant no.1 Shrimoy Ray to the said Amit Mishra stating therein that he had on several occasions requested to schedule Mathematics and Science sessions at 8.00 P.M and English alongwith SST at 9.00 P.M on each alternative day but the same was not taken care of for which he is facing trouble and thus wanted to enrol himself accordingly otherwise he would drop himself from the programme. Again on 5.11.23, the said Amit Mishra had sent a return e-mail intimating to verify the request. On the very same day at 5.11.23, complainant no.1 had intimated to the said Amit Mishra to check the previous mails as sent by him on dated 18.8.23 and 28.8.23 and also for the mail dated 27.8.23 by his father Khirod Ray requesting for refund of the money as taken from them as they had decided to refrain from the programme which was being provided by the O.Ps. Subsequently, several letters were sent by the complainants to the O.Ps in this regard. On 5.9.23 a course fee of Rs.3000/- was taken by the O.Ps which was deducted from the bank account of the complainant no.2. Since then the complainants were receiving repeated mails from the O.Ps for paying Rs.3000/- ignoring the prayer for refund as made by the complainants to them.

Thus, as per the series of mails sent by the complainants to the O.Ps on the self-same ground of refund , it is noticed that the O.Ps were quite callous and were thus negligent towards the request as made by the complainants to them and they went on insisting for the EMIs of Rs.3000/. The O.Ps, per contra have urged that the request as made by the complainants was not within the stipulated time period and since it is done subsequently and not within the 15 days policy period, no refund was to be made as the complainants were not entitled for the same. Admittedly, complainant no.1 had not attended any class for coaching which were to be provided to him by the O.Ps save and except the Welcome address as made by the O.Ps on 6.8.23. Since when the complainant no.1 has not availed the coaching, the O.Ps should not have demanded further EMIs and by insisting for the same consistently ignoring the refund request of the complainants and by taking the EMI of Rs.3000/- on the subsequent occasion signifies that the O.Ps were deficient in their service as well as they had practiced unfair trade since because the policy period to which they are insisting is quite arbitrary and unilateral and thus not in consonance with natural law of justice.