DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.749/2009

Sh. Ram Dayal Meena

S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Meena

R/o House No.12

Satvir Pawar

Ber Sarai, New Delhi                                                  ….Complainant

Versus

IES Academy

25, First Floor,

Jia Sarai, Near IIT, Hauz Khas

New Delhi-110016                                             …...Opposite Party

               Date of Institution             :    05.10.2009

Date of Order            :   20.05.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he took admission for preparation of Indian Engineering Service Examination with the OP after paying to the OP a total fee of Rs.28,000/-. Classes were started on 25.08.09. He attended five classes but was not satisfied with the method of teaching, faculty experience, syllabus, course study etc. He wrote a letter to the OP on 29.08.09 that he was not satisfied and requested the OP to refund the fee. The OP did not do so. Hence, he has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to return to him Rs.28000/ alongwith interest, to give compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental and physical harassment etc. and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. 

In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the faculty members of the OP are well qualified persons who are from the engineering background and have achieved success by qualifying various exams and hence  to judge the faculty members of the OP within few hours of lecture /course shows immature attitude of the complainant and thus the alleged dissatisfaction regarding the methodology is ambiguous,  baseless and amounts to no deficiency in service. It is stated that the OP has the information that the complainant has taken admission in some other institution. It is stated that as per the rules and code of conduct which has been signed by the complainant himself the fees once paid is not refundable under any circumstances. It is also pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer because his case does not fall under the category of defective goods or deficiency in service. It prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has not filed a rejoinder.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Sudha Yadav, Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP

None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant since 18.02.14. Therefore, vide order dated 24.03.17 we directed issuance of notice of pairavi to be him for today. Notice issued to the complainant at his given address vide dispatch No.759 dated 18.04.17 has been duly served vide track report which we mark as Mark A.

None has also appeared on behalf of the OP. Since the case is mature for final disposal, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

We agree with the submission raised on behalf of the OP that during the session of five classes the complainant could not judge the method of teaching, faculty experience, syllabus, course study etc. of the OP. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant had left the course in its midterm for some other reason which may include the reason given by the OP that the complainant had taken admission in some other institute. 

In our considered opinion, no case of deficiency in service is made out against the 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  20.05.17.