Haryana

Panchkula

CC/147/2015

RISHABH TAYAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S A.K. VIDHYAMINDIR. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                 

Consumer Complaint No	:	147 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	29.10.2015

                                                                           

Mr.Rishabh Tayal (minor aged 17 years) son of Sh.Sanjay Tayal, R/o flat No.204, GHS-77, Sector-20, Panchkula through his father Sh.Sanjay Tayal.

 

                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.     M/s A.K.Vidyamandir, SCO No.405, 2^nd Floor, Sector-20, Panchkula through its Proprietor.

2.     M/s A.K.Vidyamandir, SCO No.214, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh.

 

                                                           ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

            Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

            Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Mr.Aftab Singh, Adv., for the complainant alongwith Mr.Sanjay Tayal, authorized representative. 

                        Op No.1 already given up.

OP No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he took admission for Elite two years Integrated Coaching-cum-School Programme for the JEE in M/s A.K.Vidyamandir of Op nNo.1 on 31.03.2014. The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.1,05,400/- vide receipt No.020 dated 31.03.2014 through cheque No.524126 dated 31.03.2014 of Canara Bank, Bharat Electronics Ltd. Industrial Area, Phase III, Panchkula for full course of two years i.e. 2014-2016. The complainant has attended the classes in the institution of the Ops upto April, 2015. Thereafter, the Op No.1 has closed the institution in June, 2015. Due to lack of appropriate faculty and closure of institution, the career of the complainant has been spoiled. The complainant requested the Ops several times to refund the fees of Rs.1,05,400/- but of no use. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. The authorized representative for the complainant has made a separate statement in which he gave up the Op No.1. Therefore, the OP No.1 was given up vide order dated 17.09.2015.  
3. Notice was issued to Op No.2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.09.2015.
4. The authorized representative for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant took admission for Elite two years Integrated Coaching-cum-School Programme for the JEE in M/s A.K.Vidyamandir of Op No.1 on 31.03.2014 and deposited the amount of Rs.1,05,400/- (Annexure C-1) vide receipt No.020 dated 31.03.2014 through cheque No.524126 for full course of two years i.e. 2014-2016. From the receipt (Annexure C-1), it is clear that the complainant paid the fees of Rs.1,05,400/- for two years as in the receipt in column next installment is due on showed as ‘NIL’.  Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Ops have closed the institution in June, 2015 and the son of the complainant could not attend the classes due to closure of institution and due to lack of appropriate facilities whereas the Ops have charged the fee for two years in advance. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant find strength from the case law titled as Brilliant Classes ver. Mrs. Saroj Rawat decided on 10.01.2014 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been mentioned that it is well settled law that any coaching institute cannot charge fees for the period for which the student had not studied or in other words services had not been provided.  
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant had attended the classes in the institution of the Ops upto April, 2015, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the complainant has utilized the fee paid to the institution of the Ops for one year, therefore the plea for refunding of total amount i.e. Rs.1,05,400/- received by the Ops as fee for full course is not tenable. However, the plea that the Op No.1 has closed the institution in June, 2015 has remained unrebutted because the Op No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The OP No.1 has been given up by the complainant on 17.09.2015.  This Forum has given ample opportunities to the Ops to contest the complaint but neither the Ops have come forward to defend the complaint nor produced any evidence in the shape of record of the institute to suggest that the seat of the complainant remained vacant or filled up and it had suffered financial loss. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.  From the material available on the case it is very well established that the institute of the Ops have not suffered any financial loss and as such complaint being bonafide is entitled for refund of amount deposited by him for the year which he had not attended and the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops (as OP No.1 & OP No.2 are the same institute) are directed as under:-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs. 52,700/- (fee for one year for which the son of the complainant had not studied) alongwith interest @ 9 % from the date of deposit of the amount.

(ii)    To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-as cost of litigation.

This order shall be complied with by the ops within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy, thereafter, the Ops shall pay the amount at serial No.1 above with the interest @ 12 % per annum form the date of depositing of the amount by the complainant till realization besides complying with the directions at serial No.2 and 3 above. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

Announced

29.10.2015      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER           MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                   

 

                                            DHARAM PAL 

                                            PRESIDENT