Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/179/2016

Mr. Shiv Charanjit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashmesh Driving School - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	179 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	14.03.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	22.06.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Mr.Shiv Charanjit s/o Sh.Baldev Raj, R/o #2271/A, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh.  

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

Dashmesh Driving School, recognized by Chandigarh Administration, through Harjinder Singh, House No.17, Village Buterla, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.  

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU 

                               PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

            Complainant in person.

            Opposite Party exparte.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant paid Rs.2700/- to Opposite Party on 18.1.2016 for learning car driving under 28 days course under which 20 days was for practical training of car driving 6KM per day and Saturdays were for given information about internal parts of the car.  It is averred that the Opposite Party told that the complainant that if he does not feel satisfy, then money will be refunded and the complainant can also convey about change in the schedule/time.  It is also averred that the complainant was down on fever on 18.1.2016, so he sent message to Opposite Party and then went on 24.1.2016.  It is pleaded that the Opposite Party never came on Saturday and when asked, told that it is only for marketing and there is holiday on Saturdays also.  It is further pleaded that the Opposite Party came only for 3 days upto 7.2.2015 and in that period, the complainant have called so many times, but the Opposite Party did not pick complainant’s call and later witched off.  Then complainant requested the Opposite Party for refund of the money/fee, but he refused. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2]       Opposite Party did not turn up despite due service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 30.5.2016.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person and has perused the record.

5]       The complainant, who wanted to learn driving skills, hired the services of the Opposite Party by making payment of Rs.2700/- on 18.1.2016, as per Ann.-Page-7, in advance.  Though initially Training Schedule was maintained by marking presence on different dates, as per Page-6 & 7 of paper book, but unfortunately, OP did not adhere to a regular training schedule and the complainant while asking the Opposite Party to continue with the driving training, had shared messages over the phone, asking the OP to do the needful, so as to complete the training within shortest possible period. 

 

6]       It is revealed from the contents of the messages exchanged between the parties, that the complainant was time & again pressing for the early completion of his training, but the OP was delaying the same on one pretext or the other.  The Opposite Party repeatedly quoted his inability on the ground of medical condition of his family members, but did not give any definite reply about the completion of the training period.

 

7]       The complainant feeling dis-satisfied with the services of the OP, demanded the refund of his advance money paid to him and that too has not been refunded to the complainant nor there is any promise to do so, from its side.  

 

8]       Further, the Opposite Party has failed to put in appearance on being duly served, were proceeded against exparte and in the absence of any reply/version of the Opposite Party, the entire averments of the complaint go unrebutted against it. 

 

9]       In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund an amount of Rs.2700/- being the advance fee;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

22^nd June, 2016                                                           

                                                                        Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER