BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Himanshu s/o Jai Bhagwan, resident of # 932, Sector 19, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Fire Box Animation Studios (Head Office; SCO 118-119-120, Fourth Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh) through its Manager/Sole Proprietor / Responsible Person / Ashwani Kumar. Second Address of the Opposite Party No.1 # 246, AKS Colony, Near Lucky Dhaba, Zirakpur.

2]  Jai Kumar/Branch Incharge of Fire Box Animation Studios, SCO 27, First Floor, Sector 11,Panchkula (Branch Office of Opposite party 1).

    Second Address of the opposite party no.2 # 1300, Block 1, Rathpura Colony, Pinjore.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

   OP No.1 already exparte.

   Ms.Geeta Gulati, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant joined Fire Box Animation Studios on 24.5.2010 by depositing registration fee of Rs.10,000/- with OP No.2, who had been running branch office of OP No.1. The terms & conditions were agreed between the complainant and OP No.2, according to which total amount of Rs.70,000/- for the complete course will be paid in 14 installments of Rs.4280/- each from 11.6.2010 to 11.7.2011. The complainant made the payment of installments with some delay, but the same were accepted by OPs without any objections. It is alleged that OPs closed its Branch Office in the month of March, 2011 and OP NO.2 assured the complainant to admit him in some another institute to continue his course, but after making repeated calls, the OPs did not respond to the request of the complainant.            It is the case of the complainant that the OPs had ruined 10 months of his precious career, as no quality education was provided and only minor portion of the total course was taught. Hence, this complaint.

2.       OP No.1 did not appear despite service of notice and suffered ex-parte.

3.       OP No.2 appeared and filed reply stating therein that there was Franchisee Agreement between OP No.1 & 2, whereby OP No.1 took franchisee fee amounting to Rs.2 lacs from OP No.2. According to the terms of the agreement, the OP No.1 provided all the course material to OP No.2. The certificates were issued by OP No.1. The infrastructure was provided by OP No.2. The OP No.2 collected the fee on behalf of OP No.1 and out of the total revenue collect, OP No.1 would take the 20% of the share and OP NO.2 would take 80% for managing the institute. It is further stated that the company and its branches were closed by OP No.1 without taking the consent and informing the OP No.2 and due to this action, the OP No.2 lodged a criminal complaint, which culminated into a compromise. As per compromise, the OP NO.1 agreed to compensate students from whom the fee was accepted but the course was not completed due to closure of the institute by OP No.1 in lieu of the amount pending against OP No.2 with OP No.1. The payments which were due to OP NO.2 were not made by OP No.1. In view of this, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also perused the record.

5.       The case of the complainant is that he joined the Fire Box Animation Studios for Advance Diploma Course in Animation and agreed to pay Rs.70,000/- to OPs.  The complainant initially paid Rs.10,000/- to OP No.2 vide receipts Ann.1 & 2 and subsequently paid 9 installments of Rs.4280/- each (Ann. 3 to 11) out of total 14 installments, towards the fee of the course.

6.       The contention of the complainant is that in the month of March, 2011, OP No.2 closed their Office.  They assured him admit in some other Institute to continue the course, but did not do so and due to this act of OPs, he could not complete his course.  It is also contended that OPs had ruined 10 months precious time of his career by not imparting him proper education nor refunded the amount paid.

7.       On the other hand, OP-1 did not turn up despite having been duly served with the notice of the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

8.       The non-appearance of OP No.1 despite having been served and suffering exparte order, shows that OP No.1 has nothing to say in its defence nor want to contest the claim of the complainant and the allegations made by the complainant are true. 

9.       OP No.2 has contended that there was a Franchisee Agreement between OP No.1 & 2 and OP No.2 paid Rs.2 lacs to OP No.1 towards Franchisee Fee.  It is also contended that as per terms & conditions of the agreement, OP No.1 provided all course material to OP No.2 and the certificates were issued by OP No.1.  It is stated that the infrastructure was provided by OP No.2, the fee was collected by OP No.2 on behalf of OP NO.1 and out of total revenue collected, OP NO.1 would take 20% share and OP No.2 would take 80% of share for managing the Institute and providing infrastructure. It is contended that the Company and its Branches were closed by OP No.1 without any information and consent of OP No.2.  Even a police complaint was lodged against OP No.2, which was later on withdrawn after the compromise between the parties and as per the terms of compromise, OP No.1 agreed to compensate students from whom the fee was accepted. It is argued that the course was no completed due to the closure of institute by OP No.1. 

10.      We are of the opinion that the dispute, if any, arisen between the OPs, due to which the OP Company and its Branches were closed, was totally an issue between OPs NO.1 & 2 only and for any such dispute, the complainant and such like students should not have been made to suffer.  But the OPs due to some dispute between themselves have closed their offices, without completing the course of the complainant even after receiving the money from him.  Due to this act of the OPs, the complainant had certainly suffered loss of education, time and money.  Such act of OPs No.1 & 2 clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part.  We also opined that OPs No.1 & 2 are fully responsible for any such act, which caused loss to the complainant. They cannot unilaterally decide to close the institute without completing the courses of the students/complainant, from whom they collected the fee.  Moreover, OP No.2 cannot wriggle out from their liability by putting the whole blame on OP No.1.  The OPs are jointly & severally liable for such deficient act & conduct due to which the complainant has suffered loss of education, loss of time and loss of money. 

11.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint has lot of merit and it must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund Rs.48,520/- collected from the complainant.  They are also directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the harassment & loss caused to the complainant besides paying Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

12.     This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30.06.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.