D.O.F. 04.12.2010
D.O.O.04.04.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 4th day of April 2012
C.C.No.292/2010
Vaishnav Mohanan(Minor)
Rep.by Next friend & father
Mohanan Mavilakandy,
‘Vaishnavam’
Near Puthiya Kavu,
Pappinisseri West 670 565 Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.K.M.Pradeepnath)
1.Managing Director,
Locus Educational Services Pvt.Ltd.,
65-A Ompro Tower, Kalu Sarai,
Near IIT FLY-Over,
New Delhi 110 016.
2. Managing Director,
Locus Educational Services Pvt.Ltd.,
65-A Ompro Tower, Kalu Sarai,
Near IIT FLY-Over,
New Delhi 110 016.
3. Director,
Locus Educational Services Pvt.Ltd.,
65-A Ompro Tower, Kalu Sarai,
Near IIT FLY-Over, Opposite parties
New Delhi 110 016.
4. Director,
IIT Study Circle,
Corporate Office,
30 Hauz Khas Village,
3rd floor, Power House Complex,
New Delhi 110 016.
5. Director,
IIT Study Circle,
C/o.NH Elite EductionalServices Ltd. UGF,
South Wing,NBCC Place,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
Lodhi Road,
New Dehi 110 003.
6. Mr.Neeraj Singh
Director,
Locus/IIT Study Circle,
4/86,Vishal Khand,
Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow 226 016.
Uttarpradesh
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay
`1, 39,500 with interest at the rate of 12%.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The Complainant enrolled for two year correspondence course for IIT-JEE 2011 and AIEEE 2011 conducted by opposite party. He paid the entire course fee `14,500 in April 2009 by way of DD and opposite party received the entire amount in advance. The opposite party promised prompt service so as to provide study materials in time and also for providing online teaching to prepare the complainant for the Engineering course of IIT-JEE 2011 and AIEEE 2011 examinations. That was necessary for the complainant’s success at the engineering entrance exam at all India Level. But unfortunately with much delay, that too after frantic telephone calls from complainant, a portion of study materials sent by opposite party and thereafter nothing was sent although repeatedly requested. Since no purpose was served without study materials the complainant demanded the amount back. E-mails were sent on 27th July and 28th July 2010. But the opposite party agreed to refund `10,000 only. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of opposite prates. Complainant suffered untold mental agony, hardship and loss. On 13.9.2010 complainant caused a registered lawyer notice on 13.9.2010. Opposite party sent an E-mail dt.29.9.2010 informing them readiness to give back the entire amount provided complaint has to send fist consignment of books received by the complainant. Complainant informed to the opposite party by
e-mail dated 1.10.2010 that he is ready to send the small consignment back at the cost of opposite party. But thereafter the opposite party has kept silence. Hence complainant compelled to approach the Forum for the remedy.
Notice was issued to opposite parties but none of them appeared or filed version Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents Exts.A1 to A8.
The relevant point that has to be considered is whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant’s case is that he has paid `14,500 by way of Demand draft drawn in favour of 1st opposite party.Ext.A1 the Photostat copy of the DD reveals that the complainant sent the DD to opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that he had sent the amount to enroll for the two year correspondence course for IT-JEE-2011 and AIEEE-2011 conducted by the opposite party. It is further alleged that opposite party did not sent the study materials as assured by them. Opposite parties sent only a portion of the study materials.ExtA2. Letter written by opposite party congratulating complainant on joining the LOCUS correspondence course proves that complainant had enrolled with opposite party for the said course. The main allegation of the complainant is that opposite party did not sent the study materials promptly as promised except a small portion of the subject matter. Because of the lapses on the part of opposite parties he lost his valuable time to be equipped and prepared to write the entrance exam of Engineering course in 2011. Complaint sent e-mail to opposite party claiming refund of the course fee. Ext.A3 shows that complainant sent e-mail to refund the course fee.Ext.A4 is the reply sent by opposite party offering `10,000. Ext.A5 is another e-mail by the complainant rejecting settlement for reduced amount. Ext.A6 is the lawyer notice called upon to refund the entire course fee of `14,500 and to settle the matter amicably. Ext.A7 is the reply
e-mail informing the complainant that the management has decided not to take the matter up legally and decided to reimburse the full amount of the fee i.e. INR `14500.Ext.A8 is the e-mail sent by complaint informing his readiness to accept the offer of refund of the course fee with the condition to bear the cost of mailing charges of he books back to opposite party. Complainant adduces evidence by way of affidavit evidence that after Ext.A8 opposite parties have kept silent and remained so till date.
The facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the complainant has suffered much because of the reason of non-sending of study materials as assured by the complainant. Opposite parties agreed to refund the amount and informed the same to complainant. The only issue then remained to be solved was the question of returning of study materials already. Complainant made it clear by his reply Ext.A8 that he was ready to return the study materials already sent to him provided opposite parties had to suffer the mailing charge. Opposite parties did not give any reply to that. Keeping silence there after towards the issue is nothing but an unfair trade practice. The close scrutiny of the evidence goes to show that there was an attempt on the part of opposite parties to make an impression that they were fair in their dealings but at the crucial time they disappeared to escape from liability cunningly. Non-supply of study material without much explanation is understandable that it would create untold miseries to any student. Opposite party sent a portion of study materials, so as to make an impression that the promised materials had been supplied promptly. This is a clear deficiency in service that amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence we are of opinion that opposite party is liable to refund the entire amount of course fee together with a cost of `500 on payment of the course fee `14,500 back to complainant. Opposite parties are entitled to collect the stated study materials in the hands of complainant which had been listed in Ext.A8. Hence order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund the course fee `14,500 (Fourteen Thousand Five hundred only) to complainant together with `500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest on `14,500 from the date of this order till realization. Complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act after the expiry of one month.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1.Copy of the DD sent to OPs
A2.Letter sent by OP to complainant
A3.copy of e-mail sent to OP
A4.copy of e-mail sent by OP
A5. Copy of e-mail sent to OP
A6. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP
A7. Copy of e-mail sent by OP
A8. Copy of e-mail sent to OP
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/ forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
