BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 295 of 2019      

                                                          Date of Institution: 04.06.2019

                                                          Date of Decision:   31.01.2023. 

Veena Rani wife of Shri Harnek Chand son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of Dhani Rampura village Bhavdeen, Tehsil and District Sirsa. 

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. JS Enterprises, Level-1, Above Canara Bank, Ambedkar Chowk, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Manager.

2. Orane Institute of Beauty and Wellness Level 4, SCO 364-66, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                            ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER                      

SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER               

Present:         Sh. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Lucky Duggal, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as ops).

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant took admission with op no.1 being franchise office of op no.2 in Advance Diploma in Aesthetic and Hair Designing in September, 2018 and remtited a sum of Rs.40,000/- as fee for admission in this course vide receipt No.355 dated 17.09.2018. Thereafter, the complainant further remitted a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 12.10.2018 vide receipt No.60 and further remitted Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.100. It is further averred that complainant joined the classes in October, 2018 but she could continue her classes only for two months because her mother-in-law died due to cancer and thus, she had to discontinue her studies in order to take care of her family. That thereafter, she requested the ops to refund the excess fee lying deposited with them, but ops did not pay any heed to the same rather continued putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and ultimately they have refused to do so. It is further averred that complainant got served a legal notice dated 08.04.2019 to the ops in this regard which was duly received by ops but they have given a false and evasive reply to the same. The complainant is suffering from mental tension, agony and harassment etc. at the hands of ops without her fault. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, ops appeared. OP no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is admitted that complainant had taken admission with op and had deposited the above said amount but it is submitted that the total fee was settled as Rs.84,828/- between op and complainant. It is further submitted that complainant had attended the classes, which is clear from the attendance and complainant had almost cleared the course up to 80%. But later on complainant herself left the course, which an amount of Rs.24,828/- was outstanding against complainant which she has not paid to the op and op is still ready to provide the remaining course to the complainant by taking remaining above said amount. The complainant is not entitled for refund of any amount as alleged while op is entitled to receive the above said remaining amount from the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant had served a legal notice to the op, which was duly replied by counsel for op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       Learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be also read on behalf of op no.2.

5.       Complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, receipt of the amount of Rs.40,000/- Ex.C4, receipt of the amount of Rs.10,000/- dated 12.10.2018 Ex.C5, receipt of the another amount of Rs.10,000/- Ex.C6, receipt of the amount of Rs.1400/- for ECHO of the patient Mrs. Krishna Rani Ex.C7 and test report of patient Krishna Rani Ex.C8 and copy of the page of attendance register Ex.C9.

6.       On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Jag Mohabbat Shir Singh, proprietor of op no.1 Ex. RW1/A and copies of documents i.e. attendance sheets Ex.R1 and receipts of above said amounts Ex.R2 to Ex.R4.

7.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.     

8.       Admittedly, the complainant took admission in the institute of op no.1 i.e. franchise office of op no.2 in the course of Aesthetic and Hair Designing in the month of September, 2018 and deposited total amount of Rs.60,000/- with the ops. According to complainant, she joined the classes in October, 2018 but she could continue her classes only for two months because her mother-in-law died due to cancer and she had to discontinue her studies in order to take care of her family. On the other hand, ops have asserted that total fee was settled at Rs.84,828/- between them and complainant had attended the classes as per attendance sheet and she had almost cleared the course up to 80%. The complainant herself left the course and an amount of Rs.24,828/- was outstanding against the complainant and ops are still ready to provide the remaining course to the complainant on receipt of the remaining amount. The complainant herself admitted that she could not continue her classes though due to unfortunate death of her mother-in-law, therefore, it cannot be said that ops ever refused the complainant for not providing the classes to the complainant and according to the ops she has already completed the course up to 80%. In this regard, ops have also placed on file attendance sheet Ex.R1, the perusal of which reveals that classes were started in the month of September, 2018 and not in October, 2018 and complainant has already completed the course to the large extent. Therefore, it is proved on record that ops are not in any way deficient in service and have not adopted any kind of unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The complainant has also not made payment of whole amount of fee of Rs.84,828/- as agreed between the parties and she has already completed course against the amount paid by her. The complainant is not entitled to refund of the amount from ops as ops are providing studies of the above said course to their students after employing trainer and other supporting staff members against payment of the salaries and therefore, it cannot be said that whole of the amount paid by complainant to the ops was the income/ fee of ops. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to any refund of the amount and complaint is without any merit.

9.       In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.                       

Announced:                   Member      Member                President,

Dated: 31.01.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK