Orissa

Cuttak

CC/290/2023

Ankit Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Mayank Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

self

19 Apr 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C No.290/2023

 

Ankit Mishra,

S/o: Siba Prasad Mishra,

Residing at House No.31,

Annapurna Residential Complex,

Near Aayakar Bhawan,Cuttack.... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Mayank Kumar, Managing Director and

Co-Founder,Upgrad Education Private Limited,

Nishuvi,Ground Floor,75,Dr. Annie Besant Road,

Worli Mumbai, Mumbai City MH IN 400018(Hed Office).

 

2.        Upgrad Education Private Limited,

Esplanade Mall Office No.403,4^th Floor,

Bhuganeswar, Odisha-751010,

(Branch Office).                                                                    … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    25.08.2023

Date of Order:  19.04.2024

 

For the complainant:             Self.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 2:           Mr. N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                               

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that on his enquiry with the O.Ps for MBA course he came across the IU University of Applied Sciences, Germany which was offering online campus full-time study course for MBA 90 ECTS.  The petitioner noticed in the Web page that the said IU University of Applied Sciences has refund policy of the University within 30 days from the commencement of the course.  The complainant had to submit the necessary documents through mail in order to check for his eligibility for the said course.  He was then asked to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for booking a seat for the July 31^st batch of the year 2023 in the said MBA 90 ECTS full-time programme.  Accordingly, on 17.7.2023, the complainant had paid the said amount.  Subsequently, the complainant had received the admission offer by the said university on dated 17.7.2023 from the O.Ps for his intended course of MBA 90 ECTS July,2023 batch.  Accordingly, he had submitted all the required documents as asked to do so by the O.Ps and was further directed to complete the entire course fee payment of Rs.2,75,000/- for the semester-I online within 7 days of receiving the admission offer so as to have existent to the course. The complainant had mailed to the O.P that he would be paying the entire amount on or before 31.7.2023 and accordingly after incurring hand-loan, the complainant had paid the said amount of Rs.2,75,000/- on 31.7.2023 but even if he had paid a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- for the online course of the said university, he could not receive access to the university portal.  The O.Ps had directed the complainant to send the notarised documents to the university and they also informed that the classes would commence from 5.8.2023.  On 2.8.2023, the complainant had sent all the notarised documents as desired through courier by paying courier charges of Rs.3057/- and had borne the notarised cost of Rs.300/-.  Thereafter, the complainant had received a study contract letter from the said university on 4.8.23 with a new fee structure.  On 5.8.23, the complainant attended the first of the classes on the portal of the O.Ps where he found that an Indian Professor was teaching the said course.  But the O.Ps had promised him that the course shall be taught by foreign professors.  The course startup date was on 11.8.23 and the next class was scheduled to be on 12.8.23 but it was cancelled.  Being dissatisfied with such course study, , the complainant had mailed the O.Ps and the university on 19.8.23 for refund of his entire amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as there was a refund policy available within 30 days.  The O.Ps and the university did not respond to such request of the complainant even though he had sent to them repeated e-mails to that effect.  Having no other way out, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the total amount as paid by him, to the tune of Rs.3,04,097/- alongwith compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony, harassment, loss of opportunity and cost of his litigation.  He has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly through which they have urged that the complainant has filed his case with malafide intention and he is guilty of “suppressio veri and suggestion falsi”.  The O.Ps are technology service-provider and act as an connecting bridge in-between the university and a learner by providing online platform in order to effectuate the intended education to the learners.  They admit about the issuance of the program through their offer letter dated 12.7.23 and about the complainant paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- in pursuance of the said offer letter. According to the O.Ps, the complainant was duly informed through their refund policy as mentioned by them in their offer letter that he would not be eligible for any refund under any circumstances if any such refund requests are raised post-cohort commencement date i.e. after 31.7.2023.  Accordingly, the refund request as made by the complainant was not entertained since it was after 31.7.23.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 have also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  It is alleged by them that the complainant had not approached this Commission with clean hands and has no cause of action for which they have relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 467 wherein it is held that “The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O.VII,R.11, C.P.C taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. They have also relied another case in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Debi Recovery Appellate Tribunal,(1998) 2 SCC 70, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “law cannot permit clever drafting which  creates illusions of a cause of action.  Accordingly, it is prayed by the O.Ps to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with their written version, the O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant being interested to prosecute his studies for MBA 90 ECTS course with full time study had applied through the O.Ps for IU University Germany, for   Applied Sciences and had paid all the fees as and when claimed from him.  Thus, he had paid a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through online for the said course.  It is urged by the complainant that there was a refund policy of 30 days from the commencement of the course.  Per contra, it is urged by the O.Ps that according to their return policy, there would be no refund if it is made after 31.7.23.  So they had turned down the request of refund when made by the complainant after the said date.  Such claim of the O.Ps that there was a rider of return policy which was supposed to be made within 31.7.23 but the O.Ps have failed to apprise this Commission that if such embargo to apply for the refund as claimed by them to be done within 31.7.23 was well within the knowledge of the complainant and if such agreement was duly executed by the complainant and themselves.  Thus, such plea as undertaken by the O.Ps is found to be of no avail for the O.Ps here in this case.  In the introduction of the C.P.Act,2019, when the complainant is a resident of Cuttack, this Commission has undoubtedly jurisdiction to try this case and the question raised to that effect by the O.Ps is also of no use.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that the O.Ps by rescinding the refund request of the complainant were definitely deficient in their service and they also had practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him from the O.P here in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. The O.Ps are thus  directed to refund the course fee amount of Rs.3,04,097/- to the complainant with  immediate effect. The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment as caused to him alongwith cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 19^th day of April,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                      

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

 

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member