Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order : 17.06.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To refund Rs. 3,000/- ( Three Thousand only ) along with interest @ 14% per annum from date of payment till realization.
2. To Rs. 50,000/- ( Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
3. To pay 10,000/- ( Ten Thousand only ) as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. He has deposited required fee for studying, preparing for IIT, JEE. The opposite party is a proprietor, of the institution and the opposite party has received fee on behalf of the institution and receipt has been issued to the consumer. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
2. The opposite party assured the student that all classes would started on 26.12.2011. The complainant as well as others students reached on that date but classes were not started. On enquiry it has been stated that due to some reasons classes are not started and in between first week of Jan, 12 classes will start certainly. Time to time the complainant went to the opposite party but Classes were not started by march 12. In the mean time the complainant approached for studying in several coaching centres but more or less all institution were running classes and denied by the others institution for taking admission due to personal reasons.
3. The complainant made requests for refunding fee on the ground that classes were not started on fixed dates. On enquiry, it was found that the opposite party has not taken proper permission from the governments for studying students under the Coaching Act. There was no proper/ Specialized teacher and other facilities as toilet, parking, drinking water, etc. there was no permanent teaching staff in the coaching.
4. The complainant sent a legal notice through his lawyer and the same has been received by the opposite party and replied to the legal notice. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )

3. The Opposite Party namely Mr. Rajesh in his written statement has Submitted the following facts in opposition to the submission of the complainant :-

1. The statement made in the plain is totally denied, as the petitioner has done nothing which can be termed as against law.
2. The statement of Para no. 2 of the plain is admitted to the fact that the complainant joined the coaching on 20.12.2011.
3. The statement made in Paragraph 3(A) is accepted.
4. The statement made in the petition says that the class was not started on 26.12.2011 but my class register shows that the class started on 26.12.2011 and student were present in the class room. Complaint sent by the complainant through his lawyer on 18.02.2012 shows his intention.
5. The classes started on fixed day and the complainant has not been attending the class for a month and when he came in the last week of January he was offered by the opposite party to join the 1^st batch in which he has taken admission but the complainant was rigid to attend in the Second batch while the same batch was full and the opposite party said to complainant that whatever syllabus has been left will be compensated in the forthcoming batch and therefore to put pressure this false and fabricated case has been launched against the opposite party.
6. The ground mentioned in the petition are merely ornamental and are aimed to make the alleged offence look very grave and also aimed to attract the whims of the Presiding officer except the ground mentioned in paragraph (E) which says that no date/ signature of father/ guardian was not been made on the declaration form. If the guardian was not able to come to the office of the opposite party then how will opposite party get signature of the complainant’s father.
7. The opposite party is even now ready to arrange extra classes for the loss of his studies from the teachers available for compensating his loss of studies.

We have gone through the documents available on the record and heard the parties at length.

The written statement narrates the version of the opposite party and it has been submitted therein that the complainant was late in attending classes and he was even offered to join in other batch and left out syllabus will be compensated in the forthcoming batch and it was also offered to arrange extra classes for the loss of studies. The complainant has not controverted the submissions of the opposite party, which is duly supported by an affidavit and thus we are constrained to opinion that the complainant himself was not sincere in attending classes which started on 26.12.2015 and thus we did not find any deficiency on part of the opposite party.

Accordingly this opposite party is dismissed but without any costs.

                                        Member                                                         President