DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day of August 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 18/1/2021
CC/12/2021
Jayasree.A
(Rep.)M/o.Athulya J
Krishnakripa,
Viyyakurissy (PO), Kottiyode,
Mannarkkad Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
Vs
Direction Groups of Institutions P.Ltd.
4th Floor, Sky Tower,
Bank Road Junction
Kozhikkode – 673 001 - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
The complainant contacted the opposite party’s office who is conducting coaching classes for competitive exams for the coaching of her daughter for Bank PO/Clerk exam. The opposite party had made wide publicity regarding Bank PO/Clerk regular coaching for students starting from 9th March 2020 and when contacted by the complainant, the opposite party assured the same. Believing their words, the complainant remitted the fee of Rs.17,850/- on 9/3/2020 and the opposite party issued a receipt for this. However the opposite party did not start the classes as initially offered. The complainant contacted the opposite party’s office during May 2020 and they assured that the classes will start immediately. On 30/6/2020 the complainant send mail to the opposite party and there was no reply from their part. Only on a very late stage, the opposite party informed the complainant that they are conducting online classes but after that there was no bonafide effort from opposite party’s side to conduct direct or online classes to the applicants. Since the opposite party failed to conduct classes within the time stipulated or within a reasonable time thereafter, complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount collected, but they refused to do so. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered a damage to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Complainant send a lawyer notice to the opposite party for which no reply was sent by the opposite party and they did not refund the money.
So this complaint is filed for getting an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.17,850/- remitted by the complainant with 12% interest from 9/3/2020 till the date of payment and to pay the cost of this petition and Rs.25,000/- as compensation.
Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. Even though notice was served, the opposite party did not appear before the commission. So, opposite party’s name called absent and opposite party was set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A2 marked.
Main Issues
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation ?
Heard the complainant.
Issues 1 & 2
As per the complaint, the complainant believing the assurance made by the opposite party regarding the coaching classes for Bank PO/Clerk exam remitted a fee of Rs.17,850/- on 9/3/2020 for the coaching of her daughter. The complainant produced the payment receipt issued by the opposite party which is marked as Ext.A1. The contention of the complainant regarding the payment of Rs.17,850/- to the opposite party is clear from Ext.A1.
According to the complainant, the opposite party did not commence the classes as promised. Complainant contacted the opposite party’s office during May 2020 and there after send mail to enquire about the classes. But there was no response from the opposite party’s part. Only on a very late stage, they informed the complainant that they will be conducting online classes. However, they did not do so.
It may be true that the opposite party could not conduct regular coaching classes during March 2020 as offered due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation and the nation wide lock-down followed by this. But after the lock down period, Government permitted to conduct online classes. As per the complaint even though the opposite party informed the complainant about their online classes, there was no fruitful effort from their side to conduct classes for the applicants.
As per the Government Order, it might not be possible to conduct the regular coaching classes during the pandemic situation. But the opposite party could have conducted online classes for the applicants once the lock down relaxation came into existence and if there is any inconvenience on their part, they could have informed the complainant and refunded the amount collected as fee for coaching.
So there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not carrying out their online classes even after a reasonable time as stipulated or express their inconvenience after refunding the fee paid. The opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for that.
Since the opposite party remained ex-parte the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.17,850/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand eight hundred and fifty only) together with interest @9% from 9/3/2000 till the date of payment and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) for their deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of this complaint.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of August 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Original bill issued by opposite party towards collection of coaching class fee
Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 8/10/20
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost : Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the
proceedings in accordance with Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission
procedure) Regulations, 2020.
