Delhi

East Delhi

CC/928/2015

RAJESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAREER LAUNCHER - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  928/15

 

Shri Rajesh Aswal

R/o 23-C, Sanchar Lok Apartments

Plot No. 108, Patparganj

Delhi – 110 092                                                                     ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Career Launcher

B-2, Top Floor, Acharya Niketan

Mayur Vihar Phase – I,

Delhi – 110 091                                                                 …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 18.12.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 05.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 06.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Rajesh Aswal against Career Launcher (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,562/- with Mayur Vihar Enginerring Centre of Career Launcher towards preparation of engineering entrance exams for his son Rakshit Aswal as follows:

Cheque No.	Date	Amount	Bank details
425908	03.05.2015	5,000/-	South Indian Bank, Noida Branch
425910	04.06.2015	45,000/-	South Indian Bank, Noida Branch

 

          He has further stated that after attending classes in the month of May and June, his son realized that he did not understand the teaching method and stopped going to Institute.  Since then, the complainant requested Mr. Sharad, Centre In-charge of Career Launcher and Mr. Aman, receptionist in Career Launcher for refund of fees after deduction of amount for the attended classes, but they refused for the same stating that there was no provision of refund.

          The complainant sent a letter to Mr. Sharad on 27.11.2015 which was not replied.  Hence, the complainant prayed for refund of fees; Rs. 20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and       Rs. 6,000/- as cost of litigation. 

3.       Notice of the complaint was given to Career Launcher (OP), which was served, but they did not put the appearance.  Dasti notice was also taken by the complainant, which was refused, hence, they have been proceeded ex-parte.

 4.      In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. 

5.       We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the evidence of the complainant, it is evident that son of the complainant attended the classes in the month of May and June and stopped going to the Institute as he could not understand the teaching method. 

          The fact that son of the complainant have attended the classes and have stopped going to the Institute on his own, no case for refund of fee have been made out.  Even the law is well settled that education is not a commodity.  That being so, son of the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer.  Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant on behalf of his son does not lie.  Hence, the same deserves its dismissal and is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President