The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for receiving training of motor vehicle driving took admission with OP on being payment of admission fee of Rs.8100/- on 15-01-13. Accordingly, imparting of training started from 16-01-13. But the complainant felt frustrated from the  institution from the very beginning and was not satisfied. The complainant requested the OP to impart the training properly whereas, the OP did not give any heed to it.  The complainant was not satisfied with the quality of service rendered by OP. Subsequently, the complainant on 14-09-15  issued a notice to refund the admission fee and training fee for not imparting training which is amount to deficiency in service. But the OP after receiving the said notice did not comply the request and replied some distorted fact. Thus, the act of the OP was out and out deficiency in service due to his negligence. Hence, the complainant filed this case with prayer to allow refund of Rs.8100/- paid to the OP for imparting driving training along with 10% interest per annum. The complainant also claim Rs.30,000/- for harassment and mental agony with cost of the litigation.

After registering the case, notice was  issued to  the OP to which he submitted written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The case is also barred by limitation as the case was not filed in the prescribed period of time. The OP stated that the complainant took admission in Eureka Driving Centre for the course of driving training on 15-01-13 and the period of the training was for twelve days only. The complainant availed the full training course and on her request she was also provided an additional training of driving for a period of another three days in place of  twelve days. She attended all the days and an attendance register was maintained by the OP with the signature of the complainant along with other trainees. According to OP there was no any fault, imperfection and  inadequacy while imparting training to the complainant  to held OP liable for deficiency in service. The complainant was given training sincerely as another trainees were imparted. The OP duly replied the notice issued by the complainant through his advocate. Under the circumstances,  there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP for which he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

        In this case Complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited 4 (four) documents in support of her case. On the other hand, OP has not examined any witness but while argument submitted the argument and two documents.

          DISCUSSION,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

Upon going through the evidence and argument advanced by both the parties it is found that  the complainant took admission on 15-01-13 by paying Rs.8100/- for the training of driving of the vehicle. The admission fee was paid through S.B. Account No.911010023227198 of Axis Bank, Dibrugarh Branch. The copy of the statement of the said bank has been annexed with the evidence as Annexure-‘A’. The training started from 16-01-13 and it was imparted casually sometimes at 3:00AM or sometimes at 4:00AM and that too for 10-15 minutes per day. Since the training was irregular in timing it was not possible to learn driving properly. There was no theoretical class for imparting knowledge about the functioning of various parts and also not imparted training to face minor nature of problem of driving on road for safe driving. She was only given training for handling steering without imparting knowledge how to change the gear. There was also no examination system either theoretical or practical. Thus, the entire training imparted by the OP was deficiency in service for which the complainant could not learn any driving. Thereafter, on 14-09-15 complainant issued a letter to the OP vide Annexure-‘B’ requesting OP to refund the fee of Rs.8100/-. The OP instead of refunding the admission fee replied through his advocate stating some  distorted fact. Annexure-‘C’ is the said reply.

         Now coming to the fact of the present case that the complainant took admission on 15-01-13 and the training started from 16-01-13. But the complainant was frustrated and was not satisfied with the quality of the teaching being imparted by the OP. On the other hand, OP in their argument submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material fact that the training was for a period of twelve days which was extended for another three days. The complainant has also suppressed the material fact that she has availed the full training course and on her request additional period of  training for three days was extended.

         Under the circumstances, while discussing deficiency in service of the OP is concerned, it has to be proved by the complainant that there has been fault, imperfection shortcoming and inadequacy in quality of service undertaken to be performed by the OP in pursuance of the contract or in relation to any service. Whereas, in the instant case the suppression of the material fact as stated by the OP has been proved that the complainant neither in the complaint petition nor in her evidence stated  that she has completed training course of twelve days or fifteen days as imparted by the OP. The complainant as PW-1 stated that she started training from 16-01-13 but not mentioned when her training was completed.  She simply stated that she felt frustrated from the institution for being imparting training some time at 3:00AM and some time at 4:00 AM as there was no fix time for imparting training.  Further, the training was for 10-15 minutes for which she could not learn the driving. So far our knowledge goes fifteen days is sufficient for learning driving of a vehicle and while considering the Document- ‘B’ submitted by the OP it is seen from the attendance register that sufficient nos. of learner were imparting training but none have complained against the OP except this complainant. Further, the complainant being a female may be poor or weak to go through the learning of driving or may be due to fair psychosis, could not learn the driving imparted to her in due course.

        Further, it appears from the evidence on record that the complainant took admission on 15-01-13 and the training was imparted from 16-01-13 for fifteen days. Whereas, the complainant was sleeping for more than two years and thereafter  notice was issued on 14-09-15 which is beyond the period of limitation of two years. As per the C.P. Act u/s 24 A the maximum period of limitation is two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In the present case the cause of action has arisen from 15-01-13 and 31-01-13 whereas, the case was filed on 16-01-15 after two years ten months. Further, no condonation petition was filed to condone the delay of filing the case and simply filed one certificate for treatment as Annexure-‘D’. The condonation petition had to be filed at the time of filing the case whereas, it was not filed in time for which it appears clear that the case is barred by limitation.

        In view of the above foregoing discussion and after considering the fact and evidence, this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that the evidence disclosed by PW-1 has failed to establish  and prove that there had been any fault, imperfection and shortcoming while imparting training to the complainant as undertaken to be performed by the OP in pursuance of the contract  or otherwise in relation to the service to be provided. The testimony of PW-1 and the plea which has been taken by the complainant highly inconsistent with regard to the liability of the OP. The OP had to impart training to the complainant for a period of twelve days, whereas OP extended another 3(three) day training but it is unfortunate that the  complainant even after extension of three days could not learned the driving which, clearly proved that OP with good and bonafide intention provided an additional training of driving for another period of three days in spite of fixed period of twelve days which evidently clear that there was no any fault, imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy to held the OP liable for deficiency in service.

      In view of the above the case of the complainant is dismissed devoid of merit.