3. The complainant further submits that due to his personal problems immediately within two weeks of time he informed the opposite parties 2 and 3 that he wants to withdraw from the course from the opposite party No.1 institute and requested the opposite parties 2 and 3 to refund the amount which was deposited in the account as directed by opposite parties 2 and 3. Accordingly he sent several messages through E-mail to opposite parties 2 and 3 for refund of the amount. But the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not properly answered and failed to take steps to refund the amount which was paid by him. Hence after repeated several reminders and several E-mails sent to the opposite parties as they failed to respond, the complainant finally caused a legal notice on 07.10.2017 to opposite parties 2 and 3 for refund of the amount of Rs.44,300/- which was paid by him towards course fee. After receipt of the said notice, the opposite parties 1 and 2 sent reply notice with all false allegations in a threatening manner. But the opposite party No.3 wantonly evaded to receive the notice and same was returned un served. As there is no other go the complainant contacted Manhattan Review, Test Preparation & Admissions Consulting, Newyork through E-mail dt: 10.09.2017. In the reply the said company In-charge sent reply dt: 15.09.2017 stating that the said opposite party No. 1 to 3 do not belong to them. Hence the opposite party, who has received the fees from the complainant, failed to refund the fees though complainant withdrew from the course due to his personal problems and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant as no service was provided by the opposite parties to the complainant.
4. Opposite party made appearance and filed written version of opposite party No.1 and same was adopted by the opposite party No.2 and 3. In the written version, the opposite party No.1 admitted the registration of the complainant with the opposite party No.3 in the opposite party No.1’s institute and also admitted the payment of Rs.44,300/- towards course fee and receipt of the same by CK’s Edvantage Education Pvt. Ltd., ICICI and further stated that the opposite party running the institution since several years in Chennai and has got good reputation in the society and that the complainant himself voluntarily approached this opposite party to gain knowledge to qualify in GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) Test. After going through the terms and conditions of the opposite party, the complainant joined in the institution and paid a sum of Rs.44,300/- by online transfer of the amount from his account to the opposite party No.1 and further stated that the complainant has not attended the classes for the reasons best known to him. Thus there are latches on part of the complainant for which this opposite party is not responsible. And the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and demanded for refund of the amount paid by him, at that juncture, the 1st opposite party clearly informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the institution no amount will be refunded to anybody and also given an opportunity to the complainant on humanitarian grounds allow him to continue the course by the next sessions. The complainant did not heed the words of the opposite party No.3 and demanded for refund of the amount.
5. The opposite party further stated that the complainant has knowledge about the terms and conditions of opposite party as the complainant previously joined in the opposite party No.1 institution for GMAT course on 31.08.2016 and another course namely IELTS-RE (International English Language Testing System) on 03.10.2016 at Tirupati and attended the classes and received the materials from the opposite party No.3 at Tirupati. The complainant therefore, knew the terms and conditions of the course and also payment of the amounts, hence the complainant is not liable to receive the amount which was paid by him towards course fee to the opposite parties. And also the opposite parties further stated that the complainant is not at all a consumer and the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. If at all there is any case he has to approach Civil Court but not the Forum. In so far as any breach of contract or any recovery of amounts, the Civil court only has got jurisdiction to entertain the matter but not this Forum. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex: A1 to A6. On behalf of the Opposite party No.1 one P. Paul Ruben, S/o. P.D.Methusela, Christian, working as H.R. in the office of the first opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 to B8 were marked. Both the parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.
7. Now the point for consideration is:-
Whether the complainant will come under the purview of the Consumer? Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
8.Point:- The main case of the complainant is, he intended to join in the GMAT coaching in opposite party No.1’s institute in order to pursue further studies in USA and contacted opposite party No.2&3 through mail under Ex.A1 and after receiving the details of the course, he paid 44,300/- through online banking vide Ex:A3 statement of account, and receipt of payment of fee was sent by the opposite parties under Ex:A2 dt: 02-12-2016. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite parties have clearly stated that, the fee will be refunded if he withdraws from the course two weeks prior to commencement of the classes. Hence the complainant due to his personal reasons, within two weeks informed opposite parties No.2&3 that he wants to withdraw from the course and requested to refund the fee which was paid under Ex:A3. The opposite parties failed to refund the fee even after receipt of several mails sent by the complainant. Hence the complainant caused a legal notice under Ex:A6 dt: 07-10-2017. After receipt of the notice the opposite party No.2 gave reply notice with all false allegations. The counsel for the complainant further stated that, the complainant contacted the Manhattan Review Test Prep & Admissions Consulting, 275, Maddisson Avenue, Suite 1429, New York - 10016 through E-mail on 10.09.2017, for which they sent reply in detailed letter dt: 15.09.2017 under Ex:A5 by stating that opposite parties 1 to 3 do have nothing to do with them and there are no branches in the addresses mentioned by the complainant and the mail sent by the manhattan’s review was marked to prove the same.
9. The counsel for the complainant further argued that in the written version they have stated that the complainant is aware of the policies of their institute as he already completed the IELTS in the same institute of opposite parties and knew very well that the fee will not be refunded under any circumstances. But the said facts are no way connected to the present case. Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the fee paid by the complainant as he was not attended for any classes in opposite party’s institution.
The counsel for the opposite parties argued by denying the allegations made by the complainant and stated that the complainant himself approached the opposite parties to gain knowledge to qualify in GMAT Test and paid the course fee of Rs.44,300/- through online after gone through the terms and conditions of their institute and further argued that the complainant has not attended the classes at all for the reasons best known to him, though the classes have commenced.The counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and demanded for refund of the fee paid by him. But the opposite parties clearly informed to the complainant that, as per terms and conditions of their institutions, no money will be refunded to any body and also given an opportunity to the complainant to attend the course by next sessions. But the complainant did not pay to heed the words of the opposite parties and demanded for refund of the fee. The counsel for opposite parties further argued that the complainant stated that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of their institutions, but it is not at all true as the complainant himself completed IELTS and GMAT course on 31.08.2016 and 03-10-2016 at Tirupati branch and he is very much aware of the terms and conditions and got marked the Ex:B1 to B8 in order to prove that, they are pertaining to the previous courses studied by complainant in the Tirupati Branch. Hence the plea taken by the complainant is not tenable by any law.
10. The counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the complainant is not at all a consumer, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. If there is any breach of contract or recovery of any amount, the civil court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The case of the complainant is, he paid course-fee in order to gain knowledge by attending coaching classes for appearing GMAT exam. The opposite parties after receiving fee issued receipt of payment by agreeing to provide coaching classes and agreed to provide services to the complainant. Hence the complainant is undoubtedly a consumer under Consumer Protection ACT. After perusing the record filed by both the parties, that there is no dispute regarding the payment of course fee of Rs.44,300/- by the complainant to the opposite parties on 02-12-2016 and same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main case of the complainant is due to his personal grievance he withdrew from the course and requested the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by him. But the contentions of the opposite parties are, as per the terms and conditions of their institutions, once the amount is paid, it will not be refunded under any circumstances. But we noticed that, the said condition was stipulated in fee receipt i.e Ex:A2 but not mentioned anywhere in the mail i.e Ex:A1 dt: 30.11.2016 which was sent by the opposite parties to the complainant about the course schedule and payment of fee. But it was mentioned in fee receipt issued by the opposite parties after receipt of payment, and it shows unfair attitude of the opposite parties to deceive the students who approached them for their future prospects which cannot be encouraged . Hence we are of the opinion that there is clear unfair trade practice adopted by opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of course fee of Rs.44,300/- which was transferred by him through online on 02-12-2016 to the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainant and accordingly complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund an amount of Rs.44,300/- (Rupees forty four thousand three hundred only) which was received by the opposite parties towards course fee from the complainant and to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards compensation for unfair trade practice and for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said amount of Rs.44,300/- (Rupees forty four thousand three hundred only) shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 26th day of October, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.
PW-1: Shaik Mohammad Ishaq (Chief affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.
RW-1: P. Paul Ruben (Chief affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s
