DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 477 of  29.11.2019

                                      Decided on:                    12.5.2022

1.       Rupali Raheja D/o Late Sh.Narinder Kumar aged about 22 years,

2.       Yatin Raheja S/o Late Sh.Narinder Kumar aged about 20 years,

          Both residents of 495, LIG Flats, SST Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

BYJUS, Think & Learn Private Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Tower-D, IBC Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bengaluri-550029, through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar, Member

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.R.K.Pandey Adv., counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                      SH.PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed before this Commission by Rupali Raheja (hereinafter referred to as complainant No.1) and Yatin Raheja (hereinafter referred to as the complainant No.2) against BYJUS, Think & Learn Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP’) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for Short ‘the Act’).
2. The facts founding the claim in the instant case are that complainant No.1 was pursuing her B.Sc., and was also planning to do GRE (IB Course) and complainant No.2 was preparing for JEE-Mains after 10+2. (Complainant No.1 and Complainant No.2 are hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘complainants’ )
3. It is averred by the complainants that upon getting inspired from the advertisement published on television through a leading bollywood star and also the sponsor of Indian Cricket team, they wished to buy the product offered by the OP and accordingly, the real uncle of the complainant namely Mr.Mohinder Kumar, contacted one Mr.Rajat Rathour, an employee of the OP, who visited the residence of the complainants and gave demonstration of BYJU’s Learning App on 13.4.2019. It is pertinent to mention that Mr.Rajat also told the complainants that one BYJU App will serve only one student and the complainants have to buy two BYJU Apps for their respective studies, which will cost Rs.65000/-each. He further informed that after payment, each student will get one Tablet with SD card carrying all the required study material. He also told that one online mentor will be appointed/assigned who will help/teach the complainants on phone as well through online and also through mobile calling.
4. It is further averred that influenced from the assurance and demonstration given by Mr.Rajat Rathour, the employee of OP, the complainants purchased two BYJU’s Learning Apps and paid Rs.1,30,000/- vide receipts No.TNL201902439451 & TNL201902439270/- respectively for Rs.65000/-each dated 13.4.2019.It is further averred that the OP also issued  two online invoices  for the complainants, Yatin Raheja and Rupali Raheja. The employee of the OP Mr.Rajat Rathour assured that the OP will send two tablets and two SD cards carrying requisite study material within a week and will also appoint two mentors for the assistance and coaching.
5. The grievance of the complainants is that after making payment of the full amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the OP, the complainants received only one tablet for complainant No.2, Mr.Yatin Raheja and only one SD card for complainant No.1 Rupali Raheja. The complainants approached the employee of the OP for the second tablet for complainant No.1 and appointment of Mentor for both the complainants. It was time & again assured by Mr.Rajat that he conveyed the concerns to the OP who would send the second Tablet very shortly. It is further averred that the OP neither gave 2^nd tablet nor appointed any mentor till 23.04.2019.
6. It is further averred by the complainants that they yet again contacted Mr.Rajat, the representative of the OP, who gave the demonstration of the App at Patiala but instead of receiving a satisfactory reply, were told by him to directly contact the company for their grievance as he had left the job. Thereafter, despite the complainants calling several times at the customer care of the OP, the OP failed to address the issue.
7. It is further averred that due to non-assignment of any mentor for both the complainants and also for not supplying of tablet for complainant No.1,the complainants were forced to drop their studies  in their respective streams. It has further stated that both the complainants have suffered a lot in their studies and the OP has spoiled one precious year of the complainants. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant have also served a legal notice dated 9.8.2019 upon the OP but despite the service, the OP did not give any reply to the same. Thus, it is alleged that there is clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused lot of harassment, mental agony and huge monetary loss to the complainants. Hence, this complaint has been filed praying for issuance of a direction to the OP:

1. to get back their tablet and SD card;
2. to refund the amount of Rs.1,30,000/-alongwith interest @18% per annum;
3. to pay Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation on account of mental agony, pain & suffering;
4. to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, and
5. to pay Rs.33,000/-on account of litigation expenses

8.  Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OP through registered post dated 09/01/2020. However, none appeared on behalf of the OP and hence the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.02.2020.
9. In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainants, in addition to reiterating the averments made in the complaint, has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainants alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainants and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
11. Before considering the merits of the case of the complainants, it is significant to state may be stated that on 5.5.2022, Sh.R.K.Pandey, the Ld. counsel for the complainants has made a statement that ‘the complainants have received the payment of Rs.1,26,714/- on 26.2.2020 against the payment of Rs.1,30,000/- paid on 13.4.2019. Now the complainants wants the compensation/damages as the OP has spoiled the one precious year of both the complainants who were doing JEE-Main and GRE (IB COURSE) through the assistance of BYJU App alongwith interest on the paid amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and counsel fee of Rs.11000/-‘.
12. The whole of the evidence placed on record by the complainants corroborates the assertions set out in the present complaint. Exhibits C3 & C5 are receipts issued by the OP through their agent, Mr.Rajat Rathour and have been tendered by the complainants as evidence of the payment of Rs.65000/- each by the complainants to the OP. Exhibits C4 & C6 are photocopies of the emails sent by the OP to complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 respectively as online invoices  for the payment duly made.Legal notice issued by the complainants through their counsel Sh.Rajesh Kumar Pandey to the OP has been tendered as Exhibit C7.The evidence adduced by the complainants has been un-rebutted on record as the OP, despite due service, failed to contest the complaint and thereby impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant.
13. In the light of the submissions made and evidence tendered by the ld. counsel for the complainants, it is clear that despite the complainants making a full payment of Rs.1,30,000/- to the OP, the OP has failed to provide tablet to complainant No.1 and SD card to complainant No.2 and have also faltered in appointing mentors for guiding/helping both the complainants. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint be partly allowed exparte. Since the payment of Rs.1,30,000/- was made on 13.4.2019 by the complainants as consideration for the product/service to be provided by the OP but an amount of Rs.1,26,714/- only has been refunded by the OP on 26.2.2020 to the complainants, the OP is directed to refund the remaining consideration amount of Rs.3286/- to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e.13.04.2019 till realization. Further, we are of the opinion that interest @9% per annum which is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case shall be levied on the amount of Rs.1,26,714/-from the date of payment of consideration i.e. 13.04.2019 to the date of deposit of refund i.e. 26.2.2020. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the fact that one precious year of the complainants No.1&2 has been wasted due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the OP is also directed to pay to the complainants a sum of   
    1.  
    2.  

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 12.5.2022      

                             Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar              Pushvinder Singh

                                    Member                                       President