STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.14 of 2022
Date of Institution: 12.01.2022
Date of Decision: 22.02.2022
M/s Oasis Education Services through Authorized Representative, B-11, 2nd Floor, Old DLF Colony, Sector-14, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001. E-mail-sunilgola@gmail.com.
….Appellant
Versus
Diwan Singh Yadav, House No.1334, Dayanand Colony, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122002, E-mail: ……Respondent
CORAM: Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Satish Mishra, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Diwan Singh Yadav, respondent in person.
O R D E R
A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
(The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).
Delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. M/s Oasis Education Services (Appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 20.09.2021, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (DCDRC) has partly allowed the complaint filed by Mr. Diwan Singh Yadav (Complainant) against it.
3. In brief, complainant’s grandson Akshat Yadav had taken admission in Spark Sychrono JEE Classroom Programme course of the appellant. Complainant had paid Rs.45,000/- vide cheque No.989428 dated 12.01.2019 on account of institution fees and Rs.45,000/- in cash vide receipt No.425 dated 10.02.2019 on account of school fees. Complainant alleged that his grandson reported in the institution on 22.04.2019. However, there was no strength of students. Accordingly, the complainant withdrew his grandson from the course. Complainant demanded to refund Rs.90,000/- paid by him to the appellant. Appellant delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. After repeated efforts, appellant issued a cheque bearing No.000461 dated 10.08.2019 for Rs.38,135/- in favour of the complainant. However, when the complainant presented this cheque for payment, the same was returned with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Complainant again contacted the appellant and also issued a legal notice. On getting the notice, the appellant paid the cheque amount to the complainant. In the complaint filed by the complainant before the DCDRC, he alleged that the appellant be directed to pay Rs.51,865/- with interest at the market rate towards the balance of the fees which was not refunded by the appellant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Though, the appellant was served with the notice issued by the DCDRC, yet it did not appear and the DCDRC proceeded ex parte.
5. After appraising the evidence on the record and after hearing the counsel for complainant, the DCDRC partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 20.09.2021. The DCDRC directed the appellant to refund Rs.39,865/- (Rs.51,865/- balance fees minus Rs.12,000/- as administrative charges). The DCDRC further directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the DCDRC, Gurugram, appellant has filed this appeal.
7. We have heard Mr. Satish Mishra counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Diwan Singh Yadav, respondent in person and perused the record.
8. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Mishra, counsel for the appellant has argued that the DCDRC has allowed the complaint on the ground that the grandson of the complainant had not attended the classes even for a day. Drawing our attention to the student punches report, counsel submitted that a look at the same would show that the grandson of the complainant had attended the classes for a week. In these circumstances, the DCDRC was not justified in allowing the refund of the tuition fees.
9. Per contra, Mr. Diwan Singh Yadav, complainant has argued that his grandson did not attend the classes for a week as alleged by the counsel for the appellant. He argued that there was no other student and in these circumstances the question of his grandson in attending the classes did not arise.
10. We have considered the contentions canvassed at the bar by Mr. Satish Mishra, counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Diwan Singh Yadav, respondent in person. We are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. Appellant was duly served with the notice by the DCDRC. Despite that it did not appear before the DCDRC and contest the case. That apart, a look at the student punches report (Annexure A-2) filed alongwith the grounds of appeal would show that it is a copy of printout prepared by computer. It does not bear the signature or any other mark of the grandson of the respondent which may show that the grandson of the complainant had attended the classes. Complainant is present in the Court. He strongly disputes the ‘student punches report’. We also doubt the authenticity of this report. We are of the considered view that the DCDRC has appraised the material on the record properly and has rightly partly allowed the complaint. We affirm the order passed by the DCDRC and dismiss the present appeal. A copy of this order be sent to the DCDRC, Gurgaon as well as to the parties.
11. Statutory amount of Rs.22,500/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the present appeal be disbursed to the respondent-complainant as per rules, against proper receipt and identification after the expiry of the period of filing of appeal/revision, if any. However, before disbursing the sum of Rs.22,500/- to the respondent-complainant, the Registrar of this Commission would ensure that the complainant has not received the decreetal amount from the appellant. The DCDRC, Gurugram would adjust the sum of Rs.22,500/- disbursed to the complainant at the time of execution of the order dated 20.09.2021, passed by DCDRC, Gurugram.
Pronounced in open court
February 22nd, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik A S Narang Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
R.K
