DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 11th day of September 2023
Filed on: 10/08/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 266/2021
COMPLAINANT
JITHU JOY, S/O Joy Jacob, Thodaparamb, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam District, Kerala-683543.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- CRB TECH Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 901, 902, Pride Parmar Galaxy, Sadhu Waswani Chowk, Agarkar Nagar, Camp, Pune, Maharashtra- 411001, represented by its Directors/Authorised signatories, OP2 and OP 3.
- Pradnya Anant Bhopale, Director, CRB TECH Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 901, 902, Pride Parmar Galaxy, Sadhu Waswani Chowk, Agarkar Nagar, Camp, Pune, Maharashtra-411 001.
- Vrushali Anant Bhopale, Director, CRB TECH Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 901, 902, Pride Parmar Galaxy, Sadhu Waswani Chowk, Agarkar Nagar, Camp, Pune, Maharashtra- 411 001.
- Alia, Director, 901, 902 Pride Parmar Galaxy, Sadhu Waswani Chowk, Agarkar Nagar, Camp, Pune, Maharastra-411 001, Rep. by its Directors/Authorised Signatories.
F I N A LO R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are associated with the company, and the 4th opposite party works as a student counsellor in the same company.
The complainant came across an advertisement on the company's website for an online course in "Artificial intelligence and machine learning" and was convinced to join by the 4th opposite party. Following the 4th opposite party's instructions, the complainant made an initial payment of Rs. 3,000 online.
Subsequently, the opposite parties asked the complainant to pay an additional Rs. 15,000 to start the course, of which the complainant paid Rs. 15,000 online. However, after the payment, the complainant discovered that the course app provided was not fully functional. The opposite parties were also required to watch 20 to 30 advertisements for each module and accumulate points to unlock new modules and watch videos. The company had not disclosed these details before receiving the payment.
Despite repeated attempts to seek a refund and resolve the issue, the complainant did not receive a satisfactory response from the company. The complainant felt deceived and cheated due to the company's actions.
The complaint alleges that the company's conduct constitutes negligence and unfair trade practice. It caused the complainant mental agony and stress. The complainant seeks a refund of Rs. 18,000, compensation of Rs. 5,000 for deficiency in service and mental harassment, and the costs of litigation.
The complainant requests the commission to direct the opposite parties to address the matter and provide the proper service, refund the amount paid, and pay the requested compensation.
2) Notice
The Commission sent notices to the opposite parties, but the notices were not claimed by them, as evidenced by the proof of delivery from the Postal Department. As a result, the Commission considered this as "deemed service," and the opposite parties are set as ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had filed 3 documents that was marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-3.
Exhibit 1: The Photostat copy of the Adhaar Card of the Complainant.
Exhibit 2: A copy of the transaction details.
Exhibit 3: A copy of the legal notice dated 16.06.2021
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced a copy of the transaction details issued by the opposite parties. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite parties (Exhibits A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant filed the case seeking compensation for a deficiency in service caused by the opposite party's failure to refund the amount. The complainant alleges that they were deprived of the proper and facilitated result of the service they paid for. Despite notifying the opposite party about the denial of services and requesting an accurate resolution, the complainant received no constructive reply. The complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite party via phone and email to resolve the issue, but the opposite party failed to provide satisfactory services or responses. The complainant believes that the opposite party's conduct demonstrates negligence and unfair trade practices, intending to deceive and mislead customers to take their hard-earned money. The opposite parties' failure to provide the appropriate service, despite receiving full payment, led to a deficiency in service. The complaint was filed within the prescribed time period as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant claims that the opposite party's failure to return the money constitutes negligence and unfair trade practice, which led to mental agony and stress for the complainant.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The complaint alleges that the opposite parties provided an incomplete and misleading course app, requiring the complainant to watch numerous advertisements and accumulate points to unlock modules, which were not disclosed before receiving the payment. This act of the opposite parties constitutes a deficiency in service, as they failed to deliver what was promised to the consumer. Additionally, the deceptive practices employed by the opposite parties regarding the course content and the payment process amount to unfair trade practices.
Considering the evidence provided, the unchallenged contentions of the complainant, and the serious deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties, the Commission can conclude that the opposite parties engaged in unfair trade practices and failed to provide the promised service to the consumer.
A strong warning should be given to the online institutions which are engaging in deceptive practices, lure students to fake online learning apps, with attractive advertisements, and exploiting the parents by amazing their hard earned money and also wasting students’ valuable time. A clear message must be passed to those who engaged in such unethical activity to the effect that such practises shall never be tolerated. The Commission recalls that the authorities have a commitment to protect consumers, especially students, from falling prey to fraudulent online schemes. Strong measures prevent unscrupulous businesses from preying on unsuspecting individuals and reinforce the importance of integrity and transparency in the online education industry.
We find the issue Nos. (I) to (IV) are also in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall refund the complainant the amount of
Rs.18,000/- which was paid by the complainant for the online course. - The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant the amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and stress caused due to the unfair practices and deficiency in service.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 11th day of September 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
uk/
Appendix
Exhibit 1: The Photostat copy of the Adhaar Card of the Complainant.
Exhibit 2: A copy of the transaction details.
Exhibit 3: A copy of the legal notice dated 16.06.2021
C.C. NO. 266/2021
Order dated 11/09/2023
