Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/440/2023

VIRENDER PRASAD SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

05 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/440/2023
Date of Institution	:	08/09/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2024

 

Virender Prasad Singh s/o Sh. Manager Singh, resident of House No.812, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Extra Marks Education India Private Limited, Registered Office at 506, Surya Kiran Building, 19 K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
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-1 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Virender Prasad Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the officials of OP-1 had approached the complainant telephonically and enticed him with lucrative offers regarding their curriculum of extra marks classes upon which the complainant called the said official to his residence to explain about the entire process. Accordingly, one official of OP-1 came to the residence of the complainant and after meeting his son, who was studying in 10^th class at that time, informed that they are running online coaching classes and the son of the complainant will improve within 7 days after attending the online classes. The complainant was informed by the said official/employee of OP-1 that the total course fee would be ₹52,000/-, but, the complainant was required to pay an amount of ₹10,400/- only as down payment in cash and the remaining amount of ₹41,600/- is to be paid in 12 Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) of ₹3,467/- each.  It was also assured by the said employee that in case there is no improvement after attending the online classes, OP-1 would refund the entire fee.  On this, complainant opted for the admission of his son in the institute of OP-1 and had paid an amount of ₹10,400/- in cash as down payment vide booking form (Annexure C-2) and further the remaining amount of ₹41,600/- was to be paid by the complainant in 12 EMIs.  However, OP-1 did not disclose about the financial institution from which loan was to be provided.  It is further alleged that as online classes were never started by OP-1, complainant was duped of his hard earned money by OP-1 without providing any services and on the other hand, OP-2 started deducting EMIs without disclosing the financial institution through which the loan was sanctioned, especially when the complainant had never applied for the said loan.  Upto 6.9.2023, 4 EMIs stood deducted from the account of the complainant, without providing any services and the copy of the account statement is Annexure C-3.  In this manner, both the OPs have indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, especially when no online classes were provided by OP-1 and OP-2 started deducting the amount from the account of the complainant.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.11.2023.
3. OP-2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.  On merits, alleged that in fact the complainant had availed loan from the answering OP as against the services availed by him from OP-1 for his son.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had made down payment of ₹10,401/- as advance for three EMIs and the balance to be paid in 12 EMIs and copy of the statement of account is Annexure A.  It is further alleged that when the complainant defaulted in making the installment, an amount of ₹450/- was levied against him as bouncing charges. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted 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.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the officials of OP-1 had approached the complainant for providing online classes to his son on payment of total fee of ₹52,000/-, out of which an amount of ₹10,400/- was paid by the complainant in cash and the remaining amount was sanctioned by way of loan in favour of the complainant by OP-2, as is also evident from copy of booking form (Annexure C-2) and further that no online classes/services were provided by OP-1 to the son of the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and also if OP-2 had started deducting monthly installment amount to the tune of ₹3,467/- and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-2.
   2. So far as the case of the complainant against OP-1 is concerned, as it stands proved on record that an amount of ₹10,400/- was paid by the complainant to OP-1 as down payment and an amount of ₹34,670/- was deducted by OP-2 from the account of the complainant and was paid to OP-1 i.e. an amount of ₹34,670 + ₹10,400 = ₹45,070/- was paid by the complainant for hiring the online services from OP-1 for his son and no online classes/services had been provided by OP-1, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted by OP-1, hence it is safe to hold that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount of ₹45,070/-.
   3. So far as the case of the complainant that OP-2 wrongly started deducting an amount of ₹3,467/- from the account of the complainant is concerned, to that extent the case of complainant stands falsified from the contradictory pleadings set up by him in the consumer complaint as well as mentioned in the copy of booking form (Annexure C-2) since in para 5 of the consumer complaint complainant himself has admitted that he had agreed to pay ₹41,600/- by raising loan from the financial institution and the said fact has also been endorsed in the booking form (Annexure C-2).
   4. It is further the case of the complainant that OP-2 has charged excessive interest on the said loan amount, but, perusal of copy of statement of account (Annexure RX), having been relied upon by OP-2, clearly indicates that total loan amount to the tune of ₹34,670/- was paid by OP-2 to OP-1 and OP-2 has received the said amount including bounce charges and other receivables and has also shown the current due against the complainant as ‘zero’, it is unsafe to hold that OP-2 has charged excessive interest from the complainant.  However, when it has come on record that the complainant has paid total amount of ₹45,070/- to OP-1, as discussed above, from his account, he is certainly entitled for the refund of the said amount from OP-1.
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OP-1. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount ₹45,070/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 8.9.2023 onwards.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-2, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/04/2024 hg	[Pawanjit Singh] President
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member