Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/423/2020

Sudhir Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dhiraj Arora

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1. Sudhir Bansal son of Sh.Devi Ram Bansal.
2. Pushplata wife of Sudhir Bansal.

     Both residents of Flat No.C-902, Block-A, Tower-C, Gillco Park Hill, Sector-126, Airport Road Mohali-140308.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.14, Sector 26, Madhya Marg-160026, Chandigarh.

     Email: Bajaj Finserv, SCO 57-58-59, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Opposite Hotel Taj, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-160017.

     Email: … Opposite Parties

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant No.1 & 2 purchased the educational app provided by the OP No.1. The complainant No.1 purchased a package for her daughter for class 5^th to 10^th and paid the initial amount of Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.80,000/- (Annexure C-1). The complainant No.1 preferred a loan in the name of his wife complainant No.2 for the balance payment of Rs.50,000/- to be made to the OP No.1 from OP No.2. As per complaint, the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid by way of EMIs of Rs.4167/- from 01.12.2019 to 01.11.2020. The complainants are regularly paying the EMIs without any default till date. The invoice issued by the OP No.1 dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure C-2) and the loan account statement dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure C-3). As per complainants, during the use of the said product, certain issues cropped up and the complainant No.1 for the redressal of the grievances by writing emails (Annexure C-6). The complainant No.1 asked for the refund of the money for the product purchased from OP No.1, but all in vain. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.1 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 07.07.2021.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint. As per it, the complaint preferred by the complainant is not maintainable against OP No.2 both in fact and law. It is submitted that the said loan account in closed as on date and the No Objection Certificate has also been issued. It is also submitted that the said contents are the transaction which has happened between the complainant and the OP No.1 and that the OP No.2 does not any have any knowledge about the same. It is further submitted that the allegations raised by the complainants are against OP No.1 only. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     On perusal of the documents annexed at Annexure C-2, it is observed that complainants purchased a Custom Package (down payment of Rs.12,500/-) Scheme 15/3 for Rs.62,500/- on 21.10.2019 from the OP No.1. 
8.     On perusal of the correspondence annexed as Annexure C-5 (page 29-32 of the complaint), it is observed that the OP No.1 has failed miserably to resolve the issues projected/raised by the complainants. On perusal of Annexure C-7 to C-19, it is observed that the OP No.1 has failed to refund the money paid by the complainants inspite of cancelling the package. It is also observed that only an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been refunded after filing of the complaint and balance amount of Rs.32,500/- is still required to be refunded.
9.     Significantly, OP No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainants and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainants. Therefore, the assertions of the complainants go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹32,500/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

11.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against Opposite Party No.2, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within thirty 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.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.