DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.11.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT(I/C)
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant was a student on the O.Ps concern IAS learning platform that the complainant attended a scholarship test and got selected for scholarship, and then the O.P. arranged a scholar for the complainant. However, the complainant was not interested to proceed with the said programme and hence informed the same to the O.P. but the O.P. kept compelling the complainant to proceed with the course. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in total after which the O.P. delivered a tablet. The same was not used by the complainant since the complainant had requested for cancellation of the programme which the O.P. refused and unfairly delayed. The O.P. deliberately rejected/overlooked the complainant requests that this discrepancy was reported to the O.P. concern many times by email but no appropriate action had been taken by the O.P. till date to resolve the same. The complainant again and again intimated the O.P. by way of the telephonic conversation and by way of electronic mail conversation in order to solve the said issue. The O.P. has acted like flogging of a dead horse in lieu of providing the proper services to the complainant in lieu of providing the constructive reply to him till date. The complainant issued a legal notice through his advocate on dated 16.08.2023 but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund amount of Rs.10,000/-, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the bests interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Party.
4. The O.P. filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the complainant himself states that the student attended the test on their own free will and further in the averment states that he was not interested to proceed with the programme but proceeded ahead to pay Rs.10,000/-. The complainant after attending the test was clearly made aware about the product the course offered, the timing and everything there is to know about the course including the fact that the product cost is Rs. 67,000/- and the rest of the Rs.57,000/- was a loan that was created in the name of the complainant from a company called M/s Incred, whom the complainant has willfully not impleaded in the current case and willfully abstained from mentioning about the loan anywhere in the current case. The complainant had received the product and even when there was no fault of the O.P. and after the pre agreed refundable period as a good will gesture the O.P. had clearly expressed their willingness to cancel the course refund the amount and also close the loan and provide the NOC for the loan. The O.P. has got a very good standing in the Ed-Tech sector of the Indian market and has always conducted the online education course in a professional and esteemed manner, the complainants allegation that no service and the statement that the services provided were dreadful and deceitful is false and highly defamatory and the complainant may be asked to provide evidence which substantiates such accusations. The complainant ought to have made finance partner a party in the present complaint as without impleading the party from which the complaint has obtained the finance facility ought to be made party to complete the adjudication as without impleading the necessary party the outcome of case shall not serve the purpose of the justice and any adverse order shall have adverse effect on the O.P. company. The O.P. is not liable to pay compensation, legal fees and interest as complainant as filed the present complaint with sole intention of obtaining unlawful gains. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing, the Complainant was present but the OP found absent. The complainant submitted his argument only. The Commission perused the entire case record minutely.
6. To prove his case, the complainant produced all relevant documents in evidence whereas the Op did not adduce any documentary evidence in its credit in the present case. On analysis of the documentary evidences of the complainant, the opposite party has seized the right to choice of the complainant by not cancelling the order since Feb 2023. To redress his said specific grievance, the complainant issued Advocate Notice to the OP in constraint and communicated through the mobile whatsapp numbers 9078905436 and 7014247936 made between them but all in cloud. It also revealed that, the complainant has deposited amounting of Rs.10,000/- in two different amount installment to the OP i.e., paid Rs.7000/- on 05.03.2023 and Rs.3000/- on 07.03.2023 when forced whereas the OP has failed to substantiate that there was any contract and agreement between them to continue with the course on payment of EMI for total amount of Rs.67,000/- and even there was also no previty of contract in between the Complainant and the M/s Incred regarding payment of Rs.10000/- and rest amounting of Rs.57000/-. The OP is also not corroborated any relevant documents in evidence as stated in the written version. So the Complainant being Domino Litis having no claim against M/s Icred and did not chose to implead it as opposite party in the case in the interest of the justice. On payment of said amount Rs.10000/- the op in instant case supplied a tablet to the complainant. It does not disclose any contract between them.
On consideration of above factual aspects of the instant case, the Commission allowed the complaint against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Though the complainant has conducted the case in person and not engaged any professional Advocate in the case has not entitled for full litigation cost. So the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- litigation cost. Further, the op is liable to pay compensation of Rs.15000/- to the complainant for not consider the grievance of the complainant to cancel the package timely since February 2023 rather ignore it. If the op not complied above order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the above entire amount with interest @ 12% pa from the date of filling of the case in accordance to the Sec.71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
All the interim orders disposed of with the above order.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 18.11.2024.
