DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:623 of 2010] Date of Institution : 27.09.2010 Date of Decision : 15.07.2011 ------------------------------------------- Sh. Aditya Kumar, Aged about 16 years (Minor) son of Sh. Lakshman Kumar through his mother Smt. Sujata Chaudhuary resident of House No.3035, Sector 70, Mohali. ---Complainant. V E R S U S M/s. IITT-JEE, SCO No.914, N.A.C, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh through its Managing Director. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:None for the complainant. Sh. Dalip Kataria, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Aditya Kumar (minor) has filed this complaint through his mother Smt. Sujata Chaudhuary under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To release the Scholar Cash Reward of Rs.51,000/- to the complainant; ii) To refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as coaching fee along with interest @24% per annum; iii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental stress and agony caused to the complainant; iv) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the loss, frustration and harassment caused to the complainant due to unfair trade practice on the part of OP; v) To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the admitted facts are as under:- OP is an institute, which prepares students for entrance examination for IIT and JEE. It runs various courses for this purpose. OP issued a notice/advertisement, the relevant portion of which reads as under: - “IIT-JEE COMPETETIVE ASSESSMENT TEST (By IITT-JEE & Hindustan Times) IITT JEE is looking for 96 Brilliant Students who could potentially qualify IIT-Joint Entrance Examination 2011/12. 96 candidates will be selected on merit basis through competitive assessment tests. The selected students would be provided intensive training by IITT-JEE and will be entitled up to Rs.51,000/- to 11,000/- “Scholar Cash Reward” for the first 10 and up to 50% to 25% Scholarship for all. Rush and grab the opportunity. IITT –JEE Speed Facts. Ø Outstanding Faculty {Mix of PHD’s, Ex IIT & M. Phil’s – Expert Faculty from Delhi & Kota (having credit of more than 500 IIT selections) for every course.” In response to the aforesaid advertisement, complainant approached the OP and expressed his willingness to appear in the competitive reassessment test. He appeared in the said test and stood first. The total fees of two years course is Rs.62,500/-. In view of the above said notice/advertisement and the marks received by the complainant, he was entitled to a rebate of 50% in the fees. So the complainant was to pay Rs.31,250/- as fees for the two years course. The above said amount of Rs.31,250/- was to be paid in three installments. The first installment was payable at the time of admission; the second installment was payable in the month of April 2010 and the third installment was payable in the month of July 2010. The complainant paid the first installment of Rs.10,000/- on 7.2.2010 and paid the second installment of Rs.10,000/- on 18.4.2010. The case of the complainant is that on 28.7.2010, he went to the office of OP to deposit third and the last installment of Rs.11,250/-. One Mr. Ashwani Dharia was present there. He refused to accept the third installment and told the complainant that due to heavy financial losses, the institute is being closed by the Managing Director of the OP. On hearing this, the complainant became stunned. He requested Sh. Ashwani Dharia to arrange his meeting with the Managing Director but he expressed his inability saying that Sh. Sanjay Sinha, MD has refused to meet anybody in this regard. It has further been pleaded that as per the brochure, the classes were to commence w.e.f. 5.4.2010. However, the classes started w.e.f. 18.4.2010. The classes were discontinued from 19.4.2010 to 26.4.2010. Thereafter, the institute was closed for summer vacations from 22.6.2010 to 7.7.2010. Ultimately, the OP closed the institute w.e.f. 2.8.2010. Thus, according to the complainant, the OP did not continue the classes after 2.8.2010. According to the complainant, finding that the institute is being closed, he approached the OP for refund of the fees but the OP refused to refund the fees. According to the complainant, as the OP has itself closed the institute and has refused to impart instructions to the students, so, refusal to refund the fees in such circumstances amounts to deficiency in service. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that in the notice/advertisement mentioned above, OP has assured that the faculty will be outstanding and will be from Delhi and Kota for every course. According to the complainant, the faculty appointed for the students was not from Delhi and Kota. The students were being taught by the teachers coming for demo and trail teaching. As per the complainant, he was not satisfied by the coaching being provided by such faculty. It has further been pleaded that as the complainant stood first in the examination, so, he became entitled for a sum of Rs.51,000/- in view of notice/advertisement mentioned above. The complainant approached the OP for payment of Rs.51,000/- but the OP initially put off the matter on one pretest or the other and ultimately, refused to pay the same. According to the complainant, alluring students for taking admission on such false advertisements amounts to unfair trade practice. It has further been pleaded that the complainant issued legal notice to the OP but the same was received back undelivered with the remarks “Refused”. Thus according to the complainant, the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service. So, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by the OP, it has been asserted that the institution is still going on. It has been specifically averred that the OP never asked the complainant that the institution is being closed nor the complainant ever visited the office in the month of July 2010 for payment of the third installment. Rather, according to the OP, as the complainant failed to pay the third installment, a notice was sent to him requiring him to pay the third installment on 7.8.2010. But the complainant failed to deposit the third installment, so, his admission was cancelled. The other reason, which as per OP the complainant has not disclosed in the complaint, is that he had not paid the transportation charges of bus amounting to Rs.74,000/- by which he traveled up and down from Manimajra to Sector 70 Mohali. According to the OP, as the complainant has himself left the institute, OP is not liable to refund the amount and non refund of the fees does not amount to deficiency in service. It has further been pleaded that the faculty provided to the complainant was best faculty available from Delhi and Kota and the students were satisfied with the coaching of the Institute. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was entitled for Rs.51,000/- at the time of the completion of the course. As the complainant failed to complete the course, he is not entitled to a sum of Rs.51,000/-. In these circumstances, non payment of Rs.51,000/- does not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The OP has also denied of having received the legal notice. In these circumstances, according to the OP, the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and perused the record. 5. The case was partly argued on 12.7.2011 by the counsel for the parties. On 13.7.2011, when the case was fixed for remaining arguments, none appeared on behalf of the complainant and we proceeded to hear the matter on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the absence of the complainant. 6. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that despite the fact that the OP had told the complainant that the institute is being closed and that Sh. Ashwani Dharia refused to accept the third installment, failure to refund the fees amounts to deficiency in service. It has also been argued that otherwise also, the complainant was not satisfied with the coaching being imparted in the OP Institute as the faculty was not good. The teachers were being engaged on trial basis. 7. On the other hand, the case of OP is that the faculty was good and was from Delhi and Kota. It has also been asserted that the institute was never closed nor the OP ever refused to accept the third installment. 8. No documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the refusal to receive the third installment. On the other hand, admittedly, the OP had sent a letter dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure C-11) to the complainant requiring him to deposit the third installment on or before 30th July, 2010. It was also mentioned in the said letterthatsince the complainant had not deposited the fee for the next session, which was supposed to be deposited by first week of July, the complainant was not entitled to pursue the next session. It has further been mentioned in the said letter that in case the complainant is interested to rejoin, he may apply for readmission by 12th August, 2010 along with the requisite fee. Admittedly, the third installment was not paid by the complainant. So, the admission of the complainant was cancelled. Even thereafter, the complainant did not apply for readmission. 9. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the letter (Annexure C-11), it has been mentioned that IITT JEE centre is being relocated shortly. It means that the centre was being closed. To our mind, the mere fact that it has been written in the letter (Annexure C-11) that the centre is being relocated shortly, does not mean that the centre is being closed. It means that the centre is being shifted to some other place. 10. So, from the material on record, it is not proved that the centre was closed. Nor it is proved that the OP had any intention to close the centre and therefore, it refused to accept the third installment. 11. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that the faculty was not good or competent also stands belied from the averments made in the written statement, which are supported by an affidavit to the effect that good faculty was provided and it was from Delhi and Kota. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the complainant that he left the OP institute because he was not satisfied with the coaching. The case of the complainant is that he could not continue with the coaching because the OP had told that it is going to close the institute. In these circumstances, the argument to the effect that the complainant left the OP institute because the coaching was of not good quality has no force. 12. Thus, from the above discussion, it is proved that the admission of the complainant was cancelled because he did not pay the third installment. In these circumstances, non refund of the fees does not amount to deficiency in service. 13. As far as non payment of Rs.51,000/- being the Scholar Cash Reward is concerned, it is apparent from the notice/advertisement itself that the test was organized to select 96 brilliant students who could potentially qualify IIT or Joint Entrance Examination to be held in the year 2011-2012. The OP was to provide intensive training to them. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant did not complete the training/ course. Therefore, he is not entitled for Scholar Cash Reward of Rs.51,000/-. So, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the said advertisement amounts to unfair trade practice has no force. 14. Thus, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. 15. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 16. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 15th July 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM-II C.C.No.623 of 2010 ORDER Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 13.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 15.07.2011 President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
