Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/207/2023

MAHESHI RAM S/O LATE SH. RAM DAYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXTRAMARKS EDUCATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/207/2023
Date of Institution	:	20.4.2023
Date of Decision	:	2/04/2024

 

Maheshi Ram S/o Late Sh. Ram Dayal, Resident of House No. FF/08, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh. HQ ADGBR (NW), Sector 48-C, Chandigarh-160047.

… Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Extramarks Education India Private Limited, Registered Office at 506, Surya Kiran Building, 19K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Through its Proprietor/ Partner

2. Bajaj Finance Limited, SCO No. 57,58,59, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Pin Code- 160017, through its Director/ Branch Manager/Authorised signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Inderjeet Singh,  Advocate proxy for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP No.1 exparte
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant was initially approached by the official of OP No.1 telephonically and was enticed with lucrative offers regarding their curriculum of extra mark classes by asking the complainant to download  the application and thereafter the complainant will be registered  with OP No.1. Acting on the assurances of OP No.1, the complainant called the official of OP No.1 at his residence who asked the complainant about his children and accordingly  the complainant informed that he has two children and the younger son is in class VII and the elder daughter is in class X. After taking interview of both the children, the said official of OP No.1 insisted the complainant for the enrolment of both the children but the complainant opted  to enroll his daughter in the institute of OP No.1. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.4800/- in advance to OP No.1 which was acknowledged by it vide receipt Annexure C-2. Thereafter the online classes commenced on the ID issued by the official of OP No.1 w.e.f. April 2022. However, the daughter of the complainant was not able to understand anything  from the lecturers delivered online as the faculty was not experienced and as such the complainant was not satisfied with the services provided by the OP No.1 and accordingly the daughter of the complainant left the course and demanded refund. However, instead of receiving refund of the paid amount, the complainant received a call from OP no.2 the financier regarding installment of loan of Rs.24,000/-. The complainant was very shocked as he had never given any instructions for loan from OP No.2. Thereafter when the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 for cancellation of loan it was informed that the said loan cannot be cancelled unless the service provider OP No.1 instruct for the same and the said fact was also informed by OP No.2 vide email Annexure C-3. On 4.4.2023, the OP No.2 deducted an amount of Rs.18400/- from the account of the complainant with equated monthly instalment of Rs.1600/- . The copy of statement dated 4.4.2023 is annexed as Annexure C-4.  The complainant approached the OPs for the refund of the aforesaid amount, by having correspondence through mail but with no result. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1  was properly served and when OP No.1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 16.6.2023.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts. It is alleged that in fact the complainant himself has made request for loan through OP No.1 and accordingly loan of Rs.24,000/- was paid to OP No.1. Not only this even the complainant availed the loan by signing online application and by sharing the OTP and other credentials over the Bitly Link sent by the OP No.2 to the mobile number of the complainant. The copy of loan application is annexed as Annexure C. Thereafter the complainant himself repaid the entire amount of Rs.19,200/- and the loan stood closed on 18.4.2023 and the charges of Rs.4,950/- and penal  interest of Rs.1,037/- was duly waived off by the OP No.2 as a goodwill gesture.  The copy of account statement is annexed as Annexure D. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In replication, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant has enrolled his daughter with the institute of OP No.1 for availing online classes and had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.24,000/- to OP No.1 vide booking form Annexure C-2, by paying an amount of Rs.4800/- in advance and a loan amount of Rs.24,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by OP No.2 which was paid to OP No.1 and the OP No.2 deducted monthly installment of Rs.1600/- from the account of the complainant and the said loan account has already been closed by OP No.2, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or the complaint false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP No.2.
   2.  As per case of the complainant,  OP No.1 has agreed to provide online classes  on payment of Rs.24,000/- as fee by the complainant for providing classes to his daughter out of which the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4800/- in cash to the OP No.1  which has been mentioned in the booking form Annexure C-2. It is further clear from the mail Annexure C-5 sent by complainant to the OP No.1  that the complainant has requested the OP No.1 to cancel the subject classes and refund the paid amount to the complainant as his daughter is unable to understand the lectures given by the inexperienced  faculty members. The complainant has made request to OP No.1 within a few days of the starting the online classes and to cancel the online classes as his daughter is unable to understand the lectures given by the inexperienced faculty members   of OP No.1 but  despite of repeated requests made by the complainant it did not refund the amount  paid by the complainant through cash to the tune of Rs.4800/- and Rs.19200/- through loan,  hence, the aforesaid act of OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP No.1. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1.
   3. So far as case of the complainant that he had never applied for the loan with OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has wrongly deducted a huge amount from his account  on the pretext that the same was to be paid to OP No.1 on behalf of complainant, is concerned the said plea of the complainant stands falsified from the email Annexure C-5 (colly) which clearly indicates that the complainant has categorically admitted in the said mail sent by him to the OP No.1 that he had obtained loan amount from OP No.2 for organizing online classes from extra marks  and the outstanding amount of loan is Rs.24,000/- . Not only this  even the booking  form submitted by the complainant clearly indicates that the complainant has got Rs.19,200/- financed. As it has already come on record that the said loan account has already been closed by OP No.2  hence, the complainant has failed to prove any cause of action against OP No.2. Thus, the complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
   4.  As far as the claim of the complainant  in pursuance of Statement of account Annexure C-4 that an amount of Rs.41,785/-   have been illegally deducted by OP No,2 is concerned,  the same stands falsified from the Annexure –D the statement of account placed on record by the OP No.2, which clearly indicates that in fact the principal loan amount was Rs.24000/- and  installment amount of Rs.19,200/- was received  by the bank  apart from receiving cash amount of Rs.4800/- thereby making the balance of loan account zero. However,  the complainant intentionally withheld  the first page of the statement of account, which  has been appended by OP No.2 in Annexure-D showing  the loan account has already been closed by OP No.2 on receiving entire principal amount of Rs.24,000/-. Thus the complainant is only entitled for Rs.19200+Rs.4800/-=Rs.24000/- from OP No.1.    
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹24,000/- (Rs.4800+Rs.19200/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e.till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/04/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member