IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT SILIGURI.

CONSUMER CASE NO 49/S/2018.                    DATE OF FILING: 16-05-2018.

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI KANHAIYA PRASAD SHAH,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.C., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN &

  SMT. MALLIKA SAMADDER .

COMPLAINANT             : Sanjoy Das,

  S/O- Sri Badal Das, R/O- Hyderpara, Khudiram Pally,

  Ward No.-39, Dist.- Jalpaiguri, Pin.- 734006.

O.Ps.              1.                        : Gurukul Activity Centre,

   Station Feeder Road, Khalpara, Ward no. 8,

   P.O.- Siliguri Bazar, Dist.- Darjeeling,
               West Bengal, Pin.- 734005.

                                    2.                     :  The Zonal Manager,

   Gurukum Activity Centre, 1^st Floor,

   Udam Sing Sarani, Ward No. 13, Punjabi Para,

   P.O.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal,

   Pin.-734001.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Janmejay Ganguly, Advocate.

   FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

                   Date: 24-02-2021. 

The facts of the case:

Complainant’s case in short is that being attracted by OPs complainant paid Rs.11,000/- for modeling purpose. The total course fee was Rs.15,000/- for a tenure of 6 months classes. At the time of admission complainant furnished all bio data to the OPs during the session but the complainant was not permitted to join classes for the reason best known to OPs. Thereafter on 19.03.2018 complainant asked the OP no. 2 for refund of amount which was given by him at the time of admission.  It has been further mentioned that complainant was assured to engage in modeling and one year passed but said service was not given to complainant by OPs. Further prayer of complainant for refund of money was not allowed and there were several emails from 27.03.2018 to 18.04.2018 but with no good result and in this way complainant was harassed and has to suffer for financial expenses. The above acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and cheating causing a financial loss. The complainant has filed this complaint for reliefs (i) For refund of

Contd….P/2.

-:2:-

principal amount of Rs.11,000/-, (ii) Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (iii) Cost of the proceedings.

After admission of the complaint notices were issued upon OPs who appeared and filed their written version. In the written version OPs have admitted something but has denied other allegations. OPs have admitted that complainant had paid Rs.11,000/- out of Rs. 15,000/- at the time of admission for modeling course classes but have denied that complainant was not permitted to attend the classes. It is further version of OPs that course session was started from 1^st day of March 2017 and after attending the class for few days the complainant did not turn back to attend the class furthermore. The concerned authority when found complainant was absent on several dates then gave frequent telephonic calls to complainant and asked him to attend his classes but complainant did not give any response and in this way complainant himself was not interested in learning course of modeling. The complainant has made false allegations that the faculty questioned the complainant as to why he came at the age of 35 years.  Further complainant has not lodged any such complaint before authority.

It is further version of OPs that later on 19.03.2018 after lapse of a long period of one year the complaint gave a letter to OP no. 2 on Non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- and asked the Op to refund the sum of Rs.11,000/- which he has paid for the modeling course. Thereafter on receipt of such letter concerned authority has offered the complainant to attend the class afresh but complainant did not show any interest.  Thereafter OPs vide email dtd. 18.04.2018 informed the complainant that as per general norms, if payment is made, then it will not be refunded but to maintain their good will after deducting admission charges and the classes charge of Rs. 5,000/- the balance amount would be paid to complainant but the complainant did not pay any heed and filed this complaint case. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged by complainant so this complaint case is required to be dismissed.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

After going through the complaint and written version of both sides and oral as well as documentary evidences following points are require to be considered.

1. Whether complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice upon complainant from the side of Opposite Parties as alleged?
3. Is the complainant entitled for relief as claim for?

Contd….P/3.

-:3:-

DECISION WITH REASONS

Let us see whether complaint is a consumer or not. It appears from complaint, written version, documents and evidences that Opposite Parties deals with modeling classes and complainant has been attracted for modeling services  by Opposite parties and has paid Rs.11,000/- on 28.02.2017 out of total course fees of Rs.15,000/- for a tenure of 6 months. So there appears that complainant has hired services of Ops and as per definition of consumer as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant falls within the purview of consumer as such complainant is a consumer.

Now let us see the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by complainant against the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Parties have admitted that at the time of admission as per norms of admission, all bio data of the complainant were taken by Opposite Parties.

Complainant has raised allegation that after admission complainant was not permitted to join class and the reason was best known to Opposite Parties, so on 19.03.2018 the complainant asked the OP no. 2 to refund the amount. It has been also alleged that as per assurance the complainant was assured to have services of modeling by engaging him but one year passed and service was not provided.

On the score of providing service OPs evidence is that what has been written in written version and the evidence. In written version/evidence, it has been stated that course started from 1^st Mar, 2017 and after attending some classes for few day the complainant did not turn-up to attend classes. Thereafter concerned authority finding that complainant was absent for several days, gave frequent telephonic call and asked the complainant to attend  classes but complainant  did  not respond nor disclosed anything  before authority at that time. The complainant  did not took interest  himself in learning modeling classes and has made false allegations that he want permitted to attend class.

Let us see these allegations and counter allegations. In evidence complainant has not stated as to how much classes he has attended but has made specific allegation that he was not permitted to join the class and thereafter on 29.03.2018 he has asked the OP no. 2 to refund of amount. On 29.03.2018 he has made request on stamp paper of Rs. 10/-.

As per OPs class was stated from 1-03-2017 and attending some classes the complainant did not turn back to attend classes furthermore even on telephonic calls nor disclosed any reason.  On

Contd….P/4.

-:4:-

receipt of complainant’s letter dt. 19.03.2018 the Ops authorities have taken the matter seriously and offer the complainant to attend fresh classes but complainant showed no interest at his own will.

From the e-mails enclosed by complainant of Somadatta Jana, it appears these are dated 27.03.2018, 18.04.2018 where he has stated to Sagar that he has spoken with Snajoy (i.e. complainant) who has got harassed by the Faculty Samrat  who had been hired by Akhilesh as faculty questioned him that why did he come at the age of 35 years. Though they tried to convince him (Sanjoy) but he was quite rigid in his point and want his money back, so kindly process his money within 25 days. Thereafter Somadatta Jana has send e.mail to complainant stating that as per norm, if payment is made, it will not be refunded but still to maintain good will they will refund back money after deducting  admission charges and class which he has attended will be total amount Rs.5,000/- and  they will refund of Rs. 6,000/- only. It appear as per evidence of OPs complainant has not responded.

It also appears that no where complainant has made complaint before any authority of  faculty within one year or even to attend course with other faculty.

Though it is upon complainant to continue the classes or not and if complainant makes any allegation then he should be with clean hands. The complainant has never stated in his complaint and  evidence that he was asked as to why he has came at the  age of 35 years. However this appears only through e-mail communications between the parties.

Even for the sake of argument it is believed that  faculty has stated it then what was  harm it not clear.

However considering the entire circumstances of this case and even the humanitarian grounds what have been offered by Opposite Parties are required to be considered.

From the exhibit one it appear OPs have taken Rs.11,000/- on 28.02.2010 for 6 months  modeling class and Rs. 4,000/-was due thus course fee was total Rs. 15,000/-.

As Ops are running an institution and offering training classes of modeling then there must be rules and regulation in black and white that every candidate will be aware of all the terms and conditions. The receipt issued by OPs only states course fee for 6 months of Rs.15000/-. There is no indication as to what is admission fee and what are classes fees for each month, so on what basis the Ops have stated to deduct admission charges and classes charges amounting to Rs. 5000/- are not clear. The Ops

Contd….P/5.

-:5:-

have not also produced any register to show that how much classes were attended by the complainant and on this score it appears that this conduct amounts to unfair trade practice.

As regards placement is considered, it appears from back portion of Exhibit-1 where it has been mentioned “No placement”, so claim of complainant that he was assured for placement is not correct because he was aware for it.

So considering these aspects this commission is of the view that in absence of any rules and regulations the Ops are liable to refund the amount received from complainant being Rs.11,000/- however with nominal interest and some litigation costs.

In the result the complaint case succeeds in part and complainant is entitled for part relief. Thus the above mentioned points are decided accordingly.

Hence it is ordered

That the Complaint Case no. 49(S) 2018 is allowed on contest in part with costs. The complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.11,000/- with nominal interest @ 6 per annum since 01.03.2017 till the date of order. The complainant shall be also entitled for litigation of Rs.2000/=.

The Ops are further directed to pay the above amount within 45 days from the date of this order and in default the amount shall carry further interest @ 12 per cent per annum thereafter till the date of realization. In default complainant shall be entitled to realize the amount as per law.

Let a copy of this judgment/final order be provided to the parties free of cost.