BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

B.K. Koul, r/o # 958/A, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Mr. Rajinder Singh, Prop. Randhawa Institute of Physics, SCO no.208, 1^st Floor, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                    The Case of the complainant is that his son Himesh was pursuing his studies in 10+2 and wanted to prepare himself for IIT/AIEEE Examination regarding which he contacted the OP. The total amount of Rs.22,000/- was settled for complete syllabus of 10+2 in the subject of physics.  The OP demanded Rs.5,000/- immediately, which was paid in cash but no receipt was issued in that respect.  The son of the complainant studied only for 2 days but he could not understand/gather the teaching information and became frustrated and stopped attending the said course.  When asked to refund the entire amount of Rs.5,000/- the OP refunded only Rs.3,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,000/- was still due from him.  The complainant served notices on the OP and when the amount was not paid the present complaint was filed.

2.             We have examined the complaint to decide whether it should be admitted for regular hearing or not. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complainant and the same should not be admitted for regular hearing.

3.             The complainant was given an opportunity to produce documents in support of his contention. 

4.             We have heard the complainant in person and have perused the record.

5.             It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

6.             The contention of the complainant that he paid Rs.5,000/- to the OP is not proved from any document.  He has produced Annexure-A, which is the fee receipt vide which only a sum of Rs.2,000/- had been paid by him to the OP.  If the OP issued the receipt for Rs.2,000/-, the receipt for remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- would also have been issued, if the said amount was paid.  In the absence of a receipt, we cannot presume that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the complainant.

7.              The contention of the complainant is that his son attended the classes but he could not learn anything and therefore stopped going to the teaching classes.  He has not mentioned any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. If the student after paying a fee does not attend the classes, no deficiency can be attributed to the OP.

8.             The contention of the complainant is that out of the said amount of Rs.5,000/- only Rs.3,000/- has been returned by the OP and Rs.2,000/- have not been returned so far.  The contention of the complainant during the stage of arguments was that a sum of Rs.22,000/- was to be charged by the OP and the course was to be completed with in about 5 or 6 months.  In this manner fee comes out to Rs.3,500-4,000 per month/-.  Admittedly the son of the complainant had attended the classes and was liable to pay atleast one month fee, whereas the amount of Rs.2,000/- retained by the OP is much less than that. It is not the case of the complainant, if he was to pay charges for each day of teaching or the amount of Rs.22,000/- was to be calculated on daily basis.  His contention that the charges only for 2 days should be charged therefore cannot be accepted as correct.

9.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and there is no merit in this complaint to be admitted for regular hearing.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed in limine.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.