FORUM  FEROZEPUR.

QUORUM

                             President             :                                      Member               :         S.

                                                                  C.C. No.301 of 2011                 

                                                                  Date of Institution: 1.6.2011

                                                                  Date of Decision: 17.11.2011

Sandeep Kumar son of Rattan                                                                                            ....... Complainant

Versus

1.       Falcon Group of Institution, E.H. 198, G.T. Road, Civil Lines,  

2.       , Near F.C.I. Office, City (Area Manager).

3.       New ,

                                                                             ........ Opposite parties

Complaint     Section   12  of

                                                                    *        *        *        *        *

PRESENT :

For the complainant                   :         Complainant in person   

For opposite party No.1            :        

For opposite party No.2 & 3     :         E x-p

                                            ORDER

TARLOK SINGH, MEMBER:-

Earlier the  complainant  filed  the  present  complaint before the

District Consumer Forum at

C.C. No.301 of 2011                \\2//

Faridkot, vide order dated 22.3.2011 has dismissed the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2.                As per pleadings, complainant in the institute of opposite party No.1 at

C.C. No.301 of 2011                \\3//

Rs.55  him to the opposite parties who assured that the amount will be refunded but later on, the opposite parties refused to refund the amount of the complainant. So, pleading deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of opposite parties, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.55000/- along with interest @12% P.A. from the date of payment till realization. Rs.10  Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses has also been demanded.

3.                Upon notice, the O.P. No.1 has appeared through

4.                The opposite party No.1 has filed written statement taking some preliminary objections. It has been pleaded that the complainant took admission in A.H.M. (Air Port and Hospitality course which is of one year duration. Later on, the complainant opted for change of his course to AHCCM (Airport  Hospitality and Customer Care Management ) course of 6 months duration. Thereafter, the complainant requested in writing that he can attend the classes from 11: 00 AM to 1:00 PM and that he will be responsible in case of any loss to his studies. The complainant attended the classes for four months and thereafter, he left the institute without any reason and started demanding refund of amount paid and

C.C. No.301 of 2011                \\4//

extended life threats to the also been denied and dismissal of complaint has been prayed.

5.                Parties have led evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have                                                                                        also gone through the evidence and documents placed on file and our findings in respect   the matter in dispute are as under :-

7.                The complainant himself has produced the prospectus of the institute on the file as Ex. C-10 which shows that he has taken admission in the relevant course after going through the prospectus. There is no assurance in the prospectus that the course in question is approved by the Govt.  

8.                As per copy of a request letter Ex. R-2, the complainant has opted for change of course from AHM to AHCCM. Vide another letter copy of which is Ex. R- 3, the complainant has given in writing that he can attend the classes from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM.

9.                The opposite parties have also placed on file, the copies of attendance register from 16.8.2010 to 28.10.2010 from Ex. R-5 to Ex. R-40 which shows that the complainant had been attending

C.C. No.301 of 2011                \\5//

12.10.2010 and thereafter he has been shown absent.

10.               In our view, this practice is not appreciable that a student is allowed to continue his studies as per his own wishes. The hours of study are to be decided and fixed by the institution. The complainant himself opted for change of his course from AHM to AHCCM but later on he has left the institute at his own.

11.               In view of above discussion, we do not found any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Resultantly, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

12.               Arguments in this complaint were heard on 8.11.2011 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders

Announced 

17.11.2011

                                                                             (Sanjay                                                                                              President

                                                                                    (                                                                                               Member