<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 22nd NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1937/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Miss.M.Ramya,D/o Sri.Manohar,R/at in the care ofSri.Govinda,No.13/4A, 4th Cross,Magadi Road,Bangalore – 560 023.Since minor,Represented by her motherSmt.Shakila,Aged about 40 years.Advocate – Sri.Gopal SinghV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY GIRAFFE LEARNING,No.306, Commerce House,Cunningham Road,Bangalore – 560 052.Advocate – Mento Issac.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.26,600/- paid towards tuition fees and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant in order to promote her education joined first year P.U.C coaching at OP institution who claims to be the experts in imparting the education in the subject like Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology. OP accepted the complainant for the said composite training for first year P.U.C, second year P.U.C and C.E.T and collected Rs.38,985/-. Complainant did attend the coaching class and tuition for the first year but she was not satisfied with the performance of the Lecturers. Thus decided to discontinue the said tuition and expressed her inability to attend the second year tuition so also to the C.E.T tuition. Though she made her mind clear in the month of March 2008 itself and sought for the refund of the fees. OP failed to heed to her requests and demands. At one stage they agreed to refund Rs.18,000/-, at another stage reduced it to Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter also they did not keep up their promise. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. That is why she got issued the legal notice on 26.06.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant being the minor, her father would have filed a complaint but it is not so in this case. Complainant did availed the tuition for complete one year. What is the reason for her to withdraw from tuition abruptly in the middle of the composite course for PCMB with includes first year P.U.C, second year P.U.C and C.E.T training is not known. The contention of the complainant that OP agreed to refund Rs.18,000/- or Rs.12,000/- is false. It is specifically made clear at the time of her admission that fee once paid will not be refunded. Complainant has not assigned any reason for discontinuation of her course. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances they are not liable to refund the fees and pay the compensation as prayed. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that OP enrolled the complainant for the composite training cum tuition for first year P.U.C, Second year P.U.C and C.E.T during the academic year 2007. It is also not at dispute that OP received Rs.38,985/- from the complainant towards the said course and tuition. Now the grievance of the complainant is that after completion of the first year P.U.C tuition some how she is not satisfied with the coaching. That is why she decided to discontinue the said tuition for the second year as well as C.E.T. In that regard she contacted the OP in the month of March 2008 and sought for refund of the remaining tuition fees of Rs.26,600/-. Though OP agreed to refund Rs.18,000/- on one occasion and then reduced it to Rs.12,000/- but failed to keep up their promise. Thus the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant being a minor, she has no right to file this complaint. On the perusal of the complaint she is represented by her natural guardian the mother. It is the mother who filed a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved Kumari.Ramya the student who opted to avail tuition from OP. Hence for this simple reason we don’t find any force in the said defence. It is further contended by the OP that complainant has not assigned any reason for discontinuation of her course. Of course we find some force in this defence but still when complainant felt that the said tuition is of poor quality and not up to her satisfaction, it is her choice to continue or not to continue.<br /> <br /> 8. When OP has not imparted the tuition or coaching for second year P.U.C and C.E.T we think they are not entitled to retain that part of the tuition fees paid by the complainant. Complainant has not wasted her time. At the beginning of the second year tuition itself probably in the month of March 2008 she intimated the OP about her decision to discontinue the said tuition and coaching. Under such circumstances no such prejudice is caused to the OP either by way of monetary loss or in non filling up the said vacancy. If we take into consideration the said composite tuition it pertains to three parts, first year P.U.C, second year P.U.C and C.E.T. The amount collected by the OP is nearly Rs.39,000/-, that means to say Rs.13,000/- per category. When complainant availed the services of OP only for first year P.U.C her claim for refund of the fee for remaining two part appears to be bonafide.<br /> <br /> 9. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.19,000/- to the complainant. Non refund of the same in time amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made her repeated requests and demands to OP even by causing the legal notice but it went in vain. Under such circumstances she must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us in the above said paras, we find it is a fit case, wherein complainant deserves certain relief as observed in the body of the order. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.19,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />