DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.118/2007
Sh. R. S. Malik
S/o Sh. Tek Chand
R/o Flat No.66, Pocket-7,
Sector-2, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Flytech Aviation Academy
through its Branch Manager
Branch office at:
G-4, Upper Ground Floor
Hauz Khas
New Delhi-110016
2. Flytech Aviation Academy
Through its Director
295, A1-Kausar , Street No.1
West Maredpally
Secunderabad-500026 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 18.01.07 Date of Order : 03.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
In short, the case of the Complainant is that his son Sh. Dheeraj Malik through him had applied with the OP for “Private Pilot Licence & Commercial Pilot Licence ( PPL + CPL)” with the duration of the course for 18 months and the academic qualification was pass in 10+2 standard alongwith Physics & Maths. As per the brochure, the total cost for the said course was Rs.8,75,000/- @ Rs.3,500/- per hour and the total flying hours were to be 250. He received a letter dated 24.06.05 from the OP thereby accepting the candidature of his son. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.25,000/- with the OP vide receipt No.3225 dated 29.06.2005. All of a sudden, OP sent a letter dated 08.09.2005 thereby stating that they have revised the flying charges from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4000/-. OP had no right to change the fees as per terms and conditions. He protested the same. However, he was orally assured by the OP that they will not charge any extra amount. He deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with the OP on 06.01.2006. He also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the time of admission and the total amount paid by him was Rs.3 lacs. Complainant has stated that after receipt of amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, the OP had given 10-12 flying hours only and after that they stopped flying on the ground of shortage of staff. No flying was provided after 18.01.2006 and was started again on 23.07.2006. From September, 2005 to 15.01.2007 the OP had provided only 18 flying hours. Therefore, flying for 232 hours was not provided to his son. He received a letter dated 07.12.06 from the OP that the flying rates have been increased from Rs.3500/- to Rs.6500/- and the flying hours had been reduced to 150 hours instead of 250 hours and the duration of course was increased to 24 months. As no service was rendered by the OP, OP is liable to refund the amount which was paid by him i.e. Rs.3 lacs. The OP had given only 18 hours flying; the same is calculated @ Rs.3500 per hour and thus the total amount comes to Rs.63,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.237000/- was illegally withheld by the OP. Pleading deficiency in service, the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,37,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%.
- Direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.5 lacs as damage for mental suffering
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that complainant is not a consumer as he did not avail of or hired any services from the OP and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP; that the Complainant’s son Sh. Dhiraj Malik had approached the OP regarding the course of private pilot licence and commercial pilot licence. They explained to the Complainant regarding the course for 18 months and total of 250 flying hours and the fees for the course was Rs.8,75,000/- and flying charges as on 01.04.05 to be @ Rs. 3500/- per hour and it was informed to the Complainant that the fuel is the main raw material for the course and, therefore, the fee of the course was subject to revision/increase with a hiking in operational cost. All the details were also mentioned in the brochure of the OP. The student was required to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (including fee for ground classes Rs.50000 + admission fee Rs.25,000 + installments for 50 flying hours @ Rs.3500 per hour Rs.1,75,000/-) before 05.07.2005 out of which he had paid Rs.25,000/- towards admission fee on 29.06.05 and Rs.50,000/- fee for ground classes on 20.07.05. He had to pay Rs.1,75,000/- @ Rs. 3500/- per hour for 50 hours by 05.07.2005 out of which he made only part payment of Rs.1,25,000/- that too on 06.01.06 i.e. after delay of 6 months. As there was hike in petrol fuel in September, 2005 they informed to the students vide letter dated 08.09.05 that flying hours from 09.09.05 onwards will be charged Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.3500/- per hour and the same was also displayed on the notice board. The Ministry of Civil Aviation made a rule regarding the reduction in the flying hours through a notification and they also informed the same to the Complainant vide letter dated 08.09.05 and 07.12.06. OP has stated that the Complainant’s son right from the beginning was highly irregular in the classes and he was not able to clear the DGCA examination (NAV) in a number of attempts for this period for one & half year. The son of the Complainant was highly irregular not only in attending the course and constantly skipping the classes but also in payment of flying charges. It is denied that they had stopped the flying because of shortage of staff. It is denied that the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3 lacs. The Complainant had paid only Rs.1,25,000/- towards flying fees and his son was provided 20 hours flying which was only for 20 hours. The Complainant is entitled to pay the balance course fee of Rs.45,000/- which still remains unpaid till now as his son abandoned the course midway and caused losses to the OP. OP has further stated that the son of the Complainant was not able to cope with the academic standard, grueling schedule and discipline required for becoming pilot and therefore was not able to complete the course whereas other batch mates of Complainant’s son have successfully completed their course or are on the verge of completion of their course without any grievance and are now well placed in various airlines. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No rejoinder has been filed by the Complainant
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavits of Ms. Nisha Ahuja, Manager Operations and of Sh. Gulam Jaffer Mohiuddin, V.P (Operations) have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s son got admission with the OP for “Private Pilot Licence & Commercial Pilot Licence ( PPL + CPL) for 18 months and the total cost for the said course was Rs.8,75,000/- @ Rs.3,500/- per hour and the total flying hours were to be 250. The Complainant has placed on record a receipt dated 29.06.05 for Rs.25,000/- (copy annexure-C), receipt dated 20.07.05 for Rs.50,000/- (copy annexure-F) and receipt dated 06.01.06 for Rs.1,25,000/- (copy Annexure-H). The Complainant paid Rs.8,500/- on 20.07.05 (copy Annexure-G). Annexure- J relates to payment of Rs.15,000/- on 20.07.05 and Annexure-I relates to payment of Rs.4,000/- on 20.07.05. The OP vide letter dated 08.09.05 informed the Complainant regarding increase in flying charges from Rs.3500/- to Rs.4,000/- (Copy Ex. DW-2/3). OP vide letter dated 07.12.06 informed the Complainant regarding increase of flying hours charges @ Rs.6500/- with single engine amounting to Rs.9,75,000/- (Copy Ex. DW-2/4). The OP vide letter dated 26.03.07 submitted an attendance of the Complainant’s son alongwith the details of flying training progress charge (Copy Ex. DW-2/5). The OP has filed a copy of a notification dated 14.06.05 of Ministry of Civil Aviation whereby the flying hours were reduced from 250 hours to 200 hours (Copy Ex. DW-2/6).
Receipts are in the name of Sh. Dhiraj Malik. Therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint in his own name. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer.
Secondly, it appears from the documents submitted by both the parties that the Complainant’s son did not pay the full fees as per terms and conditions of the OP and the Complainant’s son was irregular as per attendance filed by the OP from July 2005 to December, 2005. As per the progress charge, the instructor incharge’s observation was that the Complainant’s son was not taking interest in the flying and was irregular in attending the classes. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 03.05.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 118/07
3.5.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
