DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.234/2013

Mrs. Nandini Dhara

D2-65, 3^rd Floor, Jeevan Park,

Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059

Permanent Address:  

Mrs. Nandini Dhara

C/o Gopal Ganapathy

2B, 5^th Phase, Adarshnagar,

Sonari P.O.

Jamshedpur – 831011

Jharkhand State                                        ….Complainant

Versus

1.       The Chairman, MAAC

Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics),

23, Shah Industrial Estate, Off. Veer Desai Road,

Andheri, West Mumbai -  400053

2.       The Centre Head, MAAC

(Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics),

F48, 2^nd Floor, South Extension,

Part-1, New Delhi-110049                          ……Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 22.04.13                                                            Date of Order        : 15.03.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that she had taken admission for her daughter Ms. Sayoni Dhara with the OPs on 14.06.2011. Before taking admission, she had discussion with Ms. Priyanka at Janakpuri Branch of OPs regarding bachelor’s degree in animation and web designing.  She was assured by the OPs to provide complete guidance and basic (drawings) and then gradually proceed with higher level courses. She paid Rs.10,000/- for registration and got her daughter admitted with OPs. She had transferred her daughter from Janakpuri branch to South Extension branch.  Ms. Shilpi Dubey, Head of the centre of OP No.2, had agreed to transfer, and her daughter was admitted to the bachelor’s degree on 07.07.11 after paying the fee of Rs.80,000/-. Her daughter started attending the classes but she found that her trainer was very strict and he never bothered that the daughter of the complainant was able to understand whatever she was being taught. She was humiliated in the class if she was not able to complete her task that required usage of personal computers (which was not the requirement of the OPs as told at the time of admission). The trainer did not teach the basic but directly went on to teach the advanced course. Her daughter spoke to her trainer explaining her concerns but the trainer rudely  pointed out to her that nothing would be done in this regard as she will have to grasp the course all by herself. She was also not provided any study material which added to her problems and this delayed her learning the subjects and her daughter fell sick and was unable to travel all the way to South Extension and she was medically advised to take rest for 1 week. After a week, the complainant met with Ms. Shilip Dubey and explained the whole situation and submitted the medical report and requested her to refund the fees after deducting reasonable percentage as her daughter had attended only 4-5 classes but Ms. Shipli Dubey refused to refund the same and informed her that fee was not refundable even under special situation like ill health or sickness but at the time of admission of her daughter, OP did not inform that the fee was non-refundable. She visited the office of OPs several times but till date she has not received the deposited amount. Hence, there was a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The Complainant has prayed as under:

1. Direct the OPs to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant.
2. Direct the OPs to refund the amount paid towards admission fee i.e. Rs.90,000/- (after deducting a minimum and reasonable percentage).
3. Direct the OPs to a pay sum of Rs.10,000 towards mental agony suffered by the Complainant and her family.
4. Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the petition.

OPs in the written statement have stated that the OP is an educational Institution and the complainant is not a complainant.  Admission was taken by the Complainant’s daughter in the course offered by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and MAAC jointly and, hence, if any claim for refund due to deficiency of service is made it must lie against both the institutions jointly; accordingly IGNOU is a necessary party in the present complaint. The Complainant’s daughter had taken admission with OPs’ Janakpuri Branch on 14.06.2011 and before taking admission all the details for the course of animation and web designing (3 years course) were explained to the student to her satisfaction. The Complainant paid Rs.10,00/- for registration and got her daughter admitted with OPs.  The student was got transferred to South Delhi Branch (OP-2). It is denied that the Complainant’s daughter was humiliated in the class and it is also denied that her trainer did not teach the basic (as promised) but directly went on to teach the advanced courses. It is also denied that the Complainant’s daughter was not provided any study material. If the student felt sick it cannot be termed as deficiency of service by the OP’s institution.  Clause 2 of regulation and regulation of MAAC states that “fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances or adjusted against any other offerings of IGNOU-MAAC”. The present complaint is barred by limitation as she has filed the case not within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose.  OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has not filed rejoinder to the written statement.

Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Deepak Chaudhary has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.

          The Complainant’s daughter took admission in a bachelor’s degree programme ( 3 years course) in animation and web designing which was offered by IGNOU and MAAC jointly at Janakpuri, New Delhi  on 14.06.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.90,000/-.  IGNOU and MAAC do not offer their service to any candidate nor does a student who participates in examination  conducted by the OPs hires or avails of any service from them. Therefore, there is no relation of consumer versus service provider between the Complainant and the OPs. This  situation is well in the teeth of judgment of Apex court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein it  was inter-alia held that “ the respondent student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service.”

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the OPs are not service providers nor complainant’s daughter is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on  15.3.16.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                               (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT  

Case No. 234/13

15.3.2016

Present –   None

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                             (N.K. GOEL)    MEMBER                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT