Delhi

North East

CC/27/2023

Amit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Expert Academy - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 27/23

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Amit Sharma S/o Lt. Sh. Dharambir  Sharma R/o C-6/372 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.	Expert Academy Through its Manager/Chairman/Director/AR 17/1, Near Bank of Baroda, Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041   AM College of Law Through its Manager/Chairman/Director/AR DaddiGadi, Semari, Chhata, Mathura, UP		Opposite Party No.1           Opposite Party No.2
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		27.01.23 18.08.23 02.11.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Opposite Party No.1 is a coaching institute facilitating students for higher studies and it assured the Complainant that expert academy is a reputed institute for higher studies so Complainant took admission in LLB course of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant submitted his documents and fees to Opposite Party and Opposite Party No.1 informed him that he got enrolled in course of LLB in college of Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant showed his inability to come Nangloi  and regarding fees so Opposite Party No.1 provide home service for getting fees. The Complainant got admission in A.M College of Law of Opposite Party No.2 in Mathura under Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra and at the time of exam he noticed that there was mistake in his father’s name. The Complainant informed both Opposite Parties regarding this issue and they assured him that this mistake will be corrected before next session. The Complainant submitted that he had to pay extra money for this correction but both Opposite Parties did not correct his father’s name. The Complainant submitted that it was difficult for him to register in Bar Council and he completed his course in 2018 and his father’s name was not corrected by Opposite Party. On 20.02.21 the Complainant called police helpline no. 112 as he did not get any document even after passing of the course and PCR told Complainant to call police only after visiting expert academy. The Complainant asked for 3 years for his law documents but Opposite Party denied his request and then Complainant asked for returning his money but they also denied the same.  The Complainant submitted that he got his law documents in month of June 2022 after several visits. The Complainant submitted that due to conduct of Opposite Parties Complainant faces many losses like loss of seniority in the Bar Council of India and Bar Council in Delhi, that is not reimbursable and financial loss due to change of fee structure in both Bar Council, Due to the gap of 4 years, he has to face a lot of inconvenience in preparing for AIBE exam. The Complainant submitted that he also sent a legal demand notice to Opposite Party on 17.11.22 through speed post. Legal notice sent to Opposite Party No.2 was not reached so Complainant sent legal notice on mobile no. 9837090677 of Opposite Party No.2 though whatsapp. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental harassment  and he has also prayed for litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to contest the case despite service of notice on 02.03.23 and 06.03.23 respectively. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.04.23.

Ex-parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant, in support of his complaint, filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard theComplainant in person. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant.
5. It is the case of the complainant that the at the behest of Opposite Party No.1 which is a coaching institute,the Complainant got admission in A.M College of Law, Opposite Party No.2 and at the time of exam, he noticed that there was mistake in his father’s name. The Complainant allegedly informed both Opposite Parties regarding this issue and they assured him that this mistake will be corrected before next session. The Complainant also alleged that he had to pay extra money for this correction but both Opposite Parties did not correct his father’s name. The Complainant also submitted that it was difficult for him to register in Bar Council and he completed his course in 2018 and his father’s name was not corrected by Opposite Party. The Complainant also alleged that he kept on asking for 3 years for his law documents but Opposite Party denied his request and he got his law documents in month of June 2022 after several visits. The Complainant submitted that due to conduct of Opposite Parties Complainant faces many losses like loss of seniority in the Bar Council of India and Bar Council in Delhi and financial loss due to change of fee structure in both Bar Council. It is also alleged that due to the gap of 4 years, he has to face a lot of inconvenience in preparing for AIBE exam.
6. It is the contention of the complainant that Opposite Party 2 has mentioned his father’s name incorrectly in the admit card and in spite of his several requests, the correction was not made. The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has not filed a single document to show the basis of the correct name of his father such as his high school certificate or any other such document. The complainant has also failed to show any of his correspondence with the Opposite Party 2 in this regard. The complainant has also failed to show what documents were provided by him to Opposite Party 2 at the time of admission in support of the actual name of his father. In view of that, the contention of the complainant cannot be believed that the Opposite Party 2 had committed mistake in entering his father’s name.
7. The other contention of the complainant that Opposite Party 2 had provided his law documents with delay of 4 years in spite of his several requests. In this regards, it is worth to note that Opposite Party 2 is a College of Law under Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra and the complainant has not filed any correspondence with Opposite Party 2 which might have taken place in order to show his demand for the documents. The complainant has also not filed any document to prove that the said law documents were provided by Opposite Party 2 with a delay of four years as he has neither filed any application sent to the college administration asking for documents nor has he filed any refusal by the administration. Hence, in such case, the contention of the complainant is liable to be rejected and as result, no deficiency can be imputed on the part of Opposite Parties.
8. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, we do not find any deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties and no case is made out against Opposite Parties.
9. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 02.11.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President