STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Allen Career Institute through its Authorized Representative, SCO No.354-355, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                         …..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Miss Neha daughter of Sh. Anil Nath, Resident of #5758, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh

                                         …..Respondent/Complainant                

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Tarunjit Singh Grewal, Advocate for the appellant.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 25.09.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.13 of 2019, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“(i)   to refund the balance fee of Rs.66,000/- as detailed above alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of leaving the course i.e. 4.7.2016 till realization.

(ii)   to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

(iii)  to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got admission in the coaching institute of the Opposite Party on deposit of fee to the tune of Rs.88,000/- and also deposited Rs.7600/- towards transport fee vide Annexures C-1 and C-2. It was stated that the complainant got admission in the Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 16, Chandigarh in the academic year 2016-17 which was far away from her residence.  It was further stated that the school used to close at 2:00 P.M. and the complainant could reach home around 3:00 P.M. only, whereas, the bus of the Opposite Party used to leave the area, where she resided around 2:20 P.M. and the bus provided by the Opposite Party did not suit the timings. It was further stated that due to these reasons, which were beyond the control of the complainant, the coaching had to be discontinued after expiry of around three months. It was further stated that the coaching classes were attended from 06.04.2016 to 04.07.2016. It was further stated that the complainant made various oral requests and sent letters dated 25.07.2016 and 14.09.2016 (Annexures C-3 &
   C-4) for refund of the fee of the remaining period, but these were not replied. It was further stated that the complainant also sent e-mail dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure C-5) to the Opposite Party with the request to refund the balance amount and the Opposite Party vide email dated 14.09.2017 (Annexure C-6) assured to resolve the matter, but the same was not done.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3.  The Opposite Parties filed its reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of the consumer complaint being time barred having been filed after the expiry of more than 2½ years; complainant is not a consumer as the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and to this effect reference to various case laws have been made. It was stated that the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the fee as she studied only for four months and even out of the fee received, it had to deposit tax to the Govt. to the tune of Rs.11,144/- and the consumer complaint does not show that there was any imperfection on the part of the Opposite Party in providing the required service. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the answering Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.  In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After going through the facts of the case we are of the considered opinion that the appeal in the instant case deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.
10. The appellant has nowhere mentioned in the reply and in the evidence led in the form of affidavit, that on account of discontinuation of coaching by the respondent, the appellant had been put to great loss. Further, there is no evidence that the appellant had not admitted any student in the place of the respondent or to say that no student was admitted during the session of 2016-17. The appellant could not establish that they have limited number of seating capacity and there was no scope left for admission during the said session of coaching. Further, there was no proof of appellant having deposited sum of Rs.11,144/- as tax to the Government as no receipt or proof is produced. The respondent had studied about three months with a monthly fee Rs.7,333/- and for a period of three months, the total fee works out Rs.22,000/-. As against the amount of Rs.88,000/- paid in the beginning, the respondent is entitled to refund of Rs.66,000/-. Appellant… is definitely liable to refund the amount of Rs.66,000/- to the respondent and the appellant by not refunding the said amount clearly indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. However, the prayer of the respondent for the refund of the transportation fee could not be acceded to because she availed the facility of transport till 4.7.2016.
11.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
12.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

16.12.2019                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-     

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-    

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

Gp

                                STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No.281 of 2019

(Allen Career Institute Vs. Miss Neha)

Argued by:

Sh. Tarunjit Singh Grewal, Advocate for the Appellant/Opposite Party.

Dated    the   16^th  day of  December, 2019

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld.

                    Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

Gp

STATE COMMISSION

M.A.No.1002 of 2019

In

APPEAL No.281 of 2019

(Allen Career Institute Vs. Miss Neha)

Argued by:

Sh. Tarunjit Singh Grewal, Advocate for the Applicant/Opposite Party.

Dated    the   16^th  day of  December, 2019

             Since the Appeal No.281 of 2019 has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld, as such, this application stands dismissed being rendered infructuous.

            Let this file tagged with the Appeal file.

                           Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

Gp