SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against opposite parties to refund Rs.33,000/- as collected by opposite parties and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant.
Complaint in brief
The complainant is a graduate and wanted to complete her teacher training conducted by OPs. The OPs assured job of teacher in their institution after her completion of course and that by complainant opted to join 6 months course and paid Rs.30,000/- as registration fee and Rs.3,000/- as application fee on 01/06/2020. Due to covid-19 pandemic the course was not commenced as per schedule. Not even classes and hence complainant desired to discontinue the course and requested to refund the fees paid which was denied by OPs and hence this complaint.
After filing this complaint commission has send notice to both OPs and OPs are entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.
Version in brief
The OPs denies that entire averments made in the complaint except those admitted specifically. The OPs contended that complaint is lodged by some other persons who do not know the actual rules and terms agreed by the candidate and further contended that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ deprived of or denied with any services or anything and not bound by any contract. The complainant is filed with ulterior motives to defame the OP’s institution. The OPs are director and Manager of IMTTC which provides Montessori teachers training for aspirants. The averment regarding the assurances of employment after the course, the registration fee of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as application fee and the classes not scheduled was false and denied by OPs. The OPs submitted that they announced course of IMTTC-Diploma in International Montessori Teachers Training and terms of course was well explained to the aspirants. Moreover, the admission form is self explanatory and contains a declaration that the candidate will abide rules and conditions set forth by institution and the fees once paid will not be refunded by the institution. It is clearly indicated by OPs that trainees will be provided with best training and practical training is sister concern of OPs institution but not made y placement assurance. The OPs contended that complainant joined June 2020 training batch and OPs sent the welcome email and course materials and necessary guidance to trainees including complainant. The complainant had attended few classes in June 2020 batch for IMTTC where other members is the same batch completed their course and certificate were issued to them on time. Later, complainant informed OPs about her personal inconvenience to attend the classes and informed in writing that she will join back after the school re-open. But later complainant sent an email stating that she intends to discontinue the course due to the covid pandemic. But OPs offered that complainant has the option to complete the course but OPs couldn’t refund the amount once collected since the fund collected used for various activities during course and also not possible to refund after the supply of the study materials. The OPs had no intention to grab money from candidates illegally. Moreover OPs are ready to accept complainant to continue his course when she informs her desire to discontinuation of studies. Hence there is no merit in the complaint and it is filed only to defame the institution and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to case the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- Relief and cost?
In order to answer the issues, the Commission called for the evidence from both parties, complainant produced documents, which is marked as Ext.A1 to A2. A1 is the receipt issued by OPs dated 01/06/2020 and A2 is the copy of email sent by complainant to OPs. No oral evidence adduced by complainant as well as OPs. From the side of OPs produced 6 documents which is marked as Ext.B1 to B6. B1 & B2 are the print outs of email dated 17/06/2020. B3 email from complainant dated 08/07/2020, B4 is the email communications to complainant dated 10/09/2021 and B5 is the internal email for OPs dated 18/10/2021 and B6 is the email to complainant dated 21/10/2022. OP has no oral evidence. Both side filed argument notes.
Issue No.1
On the perusal of documents produced by both parties, the commission answered issue No.1 accordingly. As per Ext.A1 it is clear that complainant paid Rs.33,300/- towards registration fee, tuition fee and application fee respectively towards OPs institution. The OPs contention that the application form itself clearly stated that once remitted fees will not be refunded is not produced before the commission to peruse. Hence the declaration with regard to the once remitted of fees is not possible to return is not proved. However, the case is with regard to the deficiency in service and on the perusal of Ext.A2 dated September 2021 complainant stated that she is not able to attend the class due to pandemic situation and intends to discontinue the course. On the other hand Ext.B1 and B2 dated 22/06/2020 shows the commencement of class, distribution of study materials etc were mentioned. Ext.B2 dated 08/07/2020, shows the link of online class which was communicated to complainant. As per Ext.B3, it is seen that an email from complainant’s email Id was sent to OPs stating that complainant will rejoin the IMTTC class after the school re-opens. In the argument note of complainant it is stated that her kids were studying through online classes provided by school due to pandemic situation. Hence, the averment regarding the non-commencement of classes by complainant seems to be false and complainant itself choose to discontinue the class on her own personal inconvenience. Ext.B4 dated 10/09/2021 seems to be the reply of Ext.A2 stated that refund of the amount remitted will not be possible. But it is seen from Ext.B4, that they offered complainant to continue her course and offered to complete her course within 3 months. Before the commission, no details of other students who joined during 2020 June batch is placed hence Ext.B5 is not considering by commission. As per Ext.B6 it is seen that tuition fees of complaint’s kids are pending but answering the issue of deficiency in service Ext.B5 and B6 seems to be irrelevant. From other exhibits it is clear to the commission that OP discontinued her studies after joining the class is only due to her personal inconvenience not due to the deficiency in service from the side of OPs. Hence issues No.1 is answered in favour of opposite parties.
Issue No.2
Since there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and hence complainant is not entitled to get compensation.
In the result the complaint is dismissed no order to cost.
Exts.
A1-Receipt
A2-Copy of email
B1&B2-Print out of email
B3-Email of complainant
B4-Email communication to complainant
B5-Internal email for OPs
B6-Mail to complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
