Complaint filed on: 06-07-2010

                                                      Disposed on: 19-11-2010

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.1528/2010

DATED THIS THE 19^th NOVEMBER 2010

PRESENT

SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT

SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K, MEMBER

Complainant: -                       

                                                Prof. Thejasvi Naviloor,

                                                # 46, Second floor,

                                                Third Cross, Lal Bahadur Nagar,

                                                B.Channasandra,

                                                Bangalore -43

V/s

Opposite party: -

                                                Mrs.Hassen Hussain,

                                                Karnataka Institute of Foreign

                                                Languages, # 68, First main

                                                Road, Opposite ICICI bank,

                                                Near Benniganahalli Bus stop,

                                                Old Madras Road,

                                                Benniganahalli, Bangaloe-16

O  R D E R

SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,

          The grievance of the complainant against the OP in brief is, that the OP runs a language learning institute offering foreign language learning programme of various duration. That himself and his wife intended to learn Arabic language based on the promise made by the OP took admission for learning Arabic language with course fee of Rs.6,000/- for the programme of 45 days. That he made payment of Rs.2,000/- in cash on the date of admission on 9-1-2010 and 2^nd installment of Rs.4,000/- was paid on 18-1-2010. They started attending classes but the OP did not conduct the course properly both in terms of quality in teaching and also in conducting class, only four classes were taken over duration of next one month. Even those classes were not of 60 minutes duration as promised. Expressing their displeasure requested for refund of their money. Even the other students also were not happy with the programme of the OP and demanded repayment of money. But the OP failed to refund the money, he sent SMS, telephone calls and even letters but were of no use. Therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund Rs.6,000/- and also to punish him.

          2. Notice was ordered on this complaint to the OP while postal acknowledgement was waited the complainant produced a letter of a senior superintendent with an enclosure to prove the service of notice. In this letter the senior superintendent of department of post, Bangalore has stated that RPAD letter was delivered to the addressee on 17-7-2010 and has enclosed the delivery slip. With this notice on the complainant has been taken as served on the OP, OP was called out remained absent and is set exparte.

          3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing the contents of the complaint. We have heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records. The complainant has produced a copy of receipt in proof of payment made and a copy of reminder issued to OP demanding repayment of money.

          4. On perusal of the complaint allegations, contents of the affidavit, fee receipt and copy of reminder they disclose that this complainant alongwith with his wife approached the OP for learning Arabic language in the duration of 45 days on payment of course of Rs.6,000/-. On the date of admission on 9-1-2001 he has shown to had paid Rs.2,000/- and balance Rs.4,000/- was paid on 18-1-2010. The receipts disclose the payments.

          5. It is the grievance of the complainant that the OP did not conduct the course properly, except four classes she did not take the classes, even that four classes were not taken for 60 minutes as promised. Thereafter the OP did not provide service in the form of teaching Arabic language. It is further stated that he fed up with this callous attitude of the OP demanded for refund of his money, when OP did not repay he sent a reminder to OP demanding repayment and sworn of the affidavit that the OP has not responded.  These allegations of the complainant have remained un-contradicted. Even the opportunity given by this forum to appear and to defend the complainant has not been availed by this OP. We therefore, under these circumstances find no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant and to discard his evidence. The service said to have been rendered even by conducting four classes stated to have not been satisfactorily. It is thus proved that the OP found to have misled the complainant got him admitted to the course, but failed to render service as promised. Thus the OP is liable to refund course fee. Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed and we pass the following order.

ORDER

          Complaint is allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.6,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Failing which, she shall pay interest at 15% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.

          OP shall also pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for his hardship, mental agony and for having misled the complainant by this kind unfair trade practice and she shall pay that amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Failing which, she shall pay interest at 16% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.

          OP shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 19^th November 2010.

       Member                                                            President