This case is coming for final hearing on 09-06-2014 in the presence of Complainant in person and Opposite Party set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

: O R D E R :

(As per Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

1. The complainant filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act on 5.12.2012 and requested the Forum to direct the Opposite party to refund the entire fee amount paid Rs.5,000/- along with 18% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and also with legal expenses.

2. The brief facts are as follows: The complainant submits that he has paid the part of the registration fees for the “CLOUD PROGRAMME” offered by NIIT, for which the fees will be Rs.30,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- initially on 29.9.2011 and he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite party for the said course. After paying the said amount as the complainant thought that it is difficult to do the course and he requested the Opposite party on 6.10.11 to cancel his admission and to refund amount of Rs.5,000/- to him, as he has not even attended the classes or taken any material from the Opposite party. Before filing the present complaint he has approached the Consumer Association of India i.e. a private organization to solve the problem and at the time the Opposite party agreed to pay only Rs.1,000/- out of Rs.5,000/- after deducting Taxes. Thereafter, he tried to solve the problem by contacting the Opposite party for refund of Rs.5,000/- but all his efforts were went invain. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking reliefs.

3. In this case notice was served to the Opposite party and the said notice which was served to the Opposite party returned to the Forum with an endorsement “refused”. Hence the Opposite party was set-exparte.

4. After the Opposite party was set exparte, the opportunity was given to the complainant to file the complainant evidence from 5.6.2013 to 2.4.2014 i.e. for 15 adjournments he has not filed his Evidence Affidavit. Even the Complainant did not filed his Written arguments. As there is no representation from the complainant and the matter was posted for orders to decide the matter under Sec.13(2)(c).

5. Sec.13(2)(c) definition as follows: where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits.

6. In this matter, the complainant even after the opportunity given to him for 14 adjournments he has not come forward to mark his documents in support of his claim.Viewing of the Principle of Sec.13(2)(c) of C.P. Act, considering the “unmarked documents” filed by Complainant, Forum decided to pass Orders on merits.

7. Now the points for consideration:

   1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party

   2. To what relief the complainant is entitled

8. The complainant filed the present complaint for refund of Rs.5,000/- which was paid in advance towards Registration Fee for ‘cloud programme’ (NIIT) offered by Opposite party.

9. The Opposite party is an Educational Institution, which provides coaching in various streams of software engineering. The receipt dt.29.9.2011 shows that the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite party towards booking fees (NIIT) which was signed by the Authorised Signatory of the Opposite party. As per Email dt.13.4.2012, he requested the Opposite party to refund of the amount of Rs.5,000/- as he was not in a position to study the course. After receiving the mail from the Complainant, the Opposite party sent the e-mail dt.16.4.2012, to solve the issue. After that then the complainant contacted the Opposite party for refund of Rs.5,000/-. Again on 23.4.2012 OP sent another email that Ms.Geetha will contact complainant regarding refund of amount. As per Email dt.25.10.2012, the Opposite party shown readiness to refund, but on condition that only Rs.1,000/- will be refunded after deducting Taxes.

10. As per case law 2006 (III) CPJ 36 is equal to 2006 III CLT 74 Delhi between Guru Govind Singh, Indraprastha University Vs. P.L.Giridhar, with regard to “Refund of Student Fee” case it was held that “claim for on account of getting admission in some other institution request for refund of fees only sum of Rs.2,500/- has been refunded. The appellant cannot be allowed to forfeit an amount with interest @ 9% is upheld and compensation of Rs.5,000/- held not awardable as interest is itself is a compensation in terms of Sec.14 of the Act.

11. As seen by the case law supra (Para 10), Guru Govind Singh, Indraprastha University case and the facts mentioned in the present case the facts are similar. In that particular case it was held that as the services are not provided the Opposite party is not entitled to forfeit and here in this particular case also has not availed the services of Opposite party. Even after that also vide Email dt. 19.11.12 Opposite party admitted to pay only Rs.1,000/- to the complainant out of Rs.5,000/- deposit amount. Hence observing the Principle of the case law 2006 (III) CPJ 36 and the Email correspondence between the complainant and the Opposite parties with regard to refund of the amount we conclude that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite party forfeiting Rs.4,000/- from the amount without providing any service.

12. Assuming for a while, if at all the said amount was returned to the complainant immediately on 06.10.2011, that day only the complainant might have accrued a interest on the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the bank atleast for 6% p.a. from 06.10.2011 to 24.06.2014 i.e. for 1331 days which amounts to Rs.1093.97 ps.

13. Hence, in the light of facts of Exhibits, we are of considered opinion

14. In the result the Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. No order to costs.

    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of June, 2014.

     

     

     

     

          Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

    President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                            District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                Visakhapatnam

     

    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

     

    Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

- NIL -

         Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                            Visakhapatnam