Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Ld.counsel appearing for the complainant for admission. Perused the record.
In the instant case, opponent no.1 is described as, “M/s.Climb First Coaching Classes”. Whether it is a “person” within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for brevity), is not made clear. This is particularly so because the receipt of payment of fees only mentioned “Climb First”. Besides that the terms of the coaching also described it as “Climb First….Climb First SAT Coaching”. Similarly, one ‘Exhibit B’ print out described it as “CF India Portal –Climb First Consultancy Pvt.Ltd.” All these descriptions do not tally with the description of opponent no.1 given in the title of the complaint, supra.
Opponent no.2 is described as a Director/Manager/ Proprietor/Partner of Climb First Coaching Classes. Its status as a Director or Manager or Proprietor or partner signifies quite different status not matching with each other. Further, by making such vague reference one does not know what is the status of “Climb First Coaching Classes” i.e. whether it is a company or it is a separate legal entity or a proprietary concern or a partnership concern. Opponent nos.3 to 5 are described, as appeared, to be agent/servants of opponent nos.1&2. This is also not a definite statement but a very vague statement. All these aspects are important because deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of the Act refers to a ‘person’ vis-à-vis his legal or contractual obligation and failure thereof. When such duties/obligations could not be spelt out, no deficiency in service on the part of opponent nos.3 to 5 could be alleged or inferred.
Coming to other aspects of the case, referring to the document ‘Exhibit C’ and the accompanying document “Climb First…..Climb First SAT Coaching” it refers to the fact that if the candidates could not achieve minimum score of 2200 out of 2400, the said coaching authority undertake to refund fees upto 100%, and the refund amount would be in such case is the percentage difference between achieved score and coaching authorities committed score multiplied by the course fee less service tax. Therefore, an ascertained amount by way of refund is to be claimed, if the candidate failed to score less than 2200. In the instant case, complainant no.2-Anukriti Maahray claimed to have scored only 1790 out of 2400. Therefore, claim, if any, for refund of fees could be entertained and that would be a civil dispute i.e. monetary claim. It is prima facie not a consumer dispute.
Complainant no.2-Anukriti Maahray is a minor. She is not properly represented through her guardian. However, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of M/s.Spring MeadowsHospital & Anr. v/s Harjol Ahluwalia, AIR 1998 SC 1801, her mother-Complainant no.1 can be taken as a beneficiary consumer. As far as allegation pertaining to unfair trade practice is concerned, it is quite vague and no material is placed on record to infer so. To score a particular level marks in the examination involves personal skill and capacity of the complainant no.2. The coaching class officials would only help to achieve a target but ultimate performance depends upon the candidate herself. Failure or short coming of the candidate to achieve a particular target would not be a deficiency in service on the part of coaching class or its officials or tutors. Civil damages as spelt out in the terms of contract i.e. refund of course fee to the extent of 100% would govern the issue in such circumstances and which, as earlier pointed out, is not a consumer dispute.
Other allegation in respect of non supply of course material, not making available tutor for a particular duration etc., prima facie, appears to be decorated statements and unbelievable. Had there been any truth in such allegation then complainant no.1 ought to have made a complaint to the coaching class officials about the same when the coaching started. Till examination was over and the result was declared or even thereafter till filing of the consumer complaint, no such grievance appears to have been made. Hence case of the complainant on this count, prima facie, cannot be believed.
Besides this, the course fee charged is of `45,000/-. As per prayer clause VII(b) refund of said fee is claimed along with interest @ 18% p.a. Further compensation of `20 lakhs is claimed by way of damages/compensation for causing severe mental agony, extreme embarrassment, trauma and distress to the complainants. When we asked Ld.counsel appearing for the complainants as to what is the supporting material to claim such hefty compensation which, prima facie, appears to be unjust and improper or claim made is quite on higher side i.e. inflated just to bring the consumer complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission; the learned counsel had no answer except to point out para 5 of the complaint which itself is quite vague and supply no particulars on the basis of which reasonably it could be said that compensation claimed is reasonable. Under the circumstances, we find that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the complaint is unjustly and deliberately raised or inflated to bring the consumer complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Consumer complaint is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 29th July, 2013
