Delhi

East Delhi

CC/146/2018

KOMAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JAVID HABIB - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 146/2018

 

 

	KOMAL SHARMA D/o SH. SUBODH KUMAR SHARMA, R/o 193, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.	….Complainant
Versus
1.   2.	M/s JAWED HABIB   M/s SEEMA AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY   BOTH AT 65-A, FIRST FLOOR, GURU NANAK PURA, MAIN VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR, NEAR NIRMAN VIHAR, METRO STATION, PILLAR NO. 57, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092.	…OP1                              …OP2

 

                                                         

 

 

Date of Institution: 03.05.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 17.03.2023

Judgment Passed on: 10.04.2023

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar, Member

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not providing her complete training for Hair, Makeup & Beauty Course despite of making full payment to them and not creating congenial atmosphere for availing the training in their Academy/Institution.
2. Complainant has stated in her complaint that she joined the Academy/Institution of the OPs on 16.10.2016 for Hair, Makeup & Beauty Course and she paid entire fees of Rs.90,000/- to the OP. She has stated that while she was pursuing the said courses, one of the faculty namely Mr. Rahul Mehra misbehaved with her and did eve-teasing and tried to outrage her modesty for which she filed FIR No.234/2017 at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi on 31.05.2017.  After this she was forcefully ousted by OP2 from the Academy/Institution and threatened her not to come back and she can have her Course Completion Certificate without completion of the course and without imparting the training to her which was objected to by her.
3. The Complainant thereafter requested OP2 that if she is not willing to impart training for the above said course then she should return the entire fee of Rs.90,000/- which was flatly refused by the OP2. The Complainant has made following prayers in her Complainant:

•  To direct OP to pay Rs.90,000/- with 12% interest from 30.05.2017.
• To award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment.
• To award Rs.25000/- towards Legal Expenses.
• Any other order in facts and circumstances in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs.

4. Notice was issued to OPs and joint reply has been filed on behalf of both the OPs by Ms. Seema Goel (OP2) to the complaint however there is no authorisation letter of OP1 to this effect in favour of OP2 nor the same is filed along with the reply by OP2. In her reply she has stated that OP2 is a franchisee of OP1 – Jawed Habib Academy and she is Proprietor of OP2. The Complainant had joined her Academy for Hair, Makeup & Beauty Course for which she had paid Rs.45,000/- (including Cost of Hair Kit retained by Complainant of Rs.5,000/-) on 06.10.2016 towards hair comprehensive course and she paid Rs.40,000/- towards professional make-up course on 12.10.2016. The Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as she had joined these courses to launch her own training institute and thus the same was for commercial purpose. The Complainant had at the time of admission disclosed her name as ‘Komal Sharma’ however during the course of training she has stated sometimes her name as ‘Priya’. She was not signing the log book on each day of training and she received training of the courses and Course Completion Certificate dated 29.09.2017 is ready for delivery to her.
5. However, despite of completion of courses, Complainant asked for refund of the amount but OP2 refused as she had already completed her course. In order to wreak vengeance Complainant lodged complaint against faculty member Mr. Rahul Mehra which culminated in FIR No.234/2017 and during police investigation all the staff members, students individually and collectively informed P.S. Shakarpur that the complaint lodged by her was false. Since, the Complainant was insisting to refund the amount OP2 also registered FIR No.235/17 against the Complainant in P.S. Shakarpur.
6. The Course Completion Certificate dated 29.09.2017 is ready and the Complainant is free to take delivery. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint filed by the Complainant be dismissed.
7. Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the reply of the OP2 denying the same and reiterated the contents of her complaint.
8. Complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has exhibited the documents as follows:

• Copy of notice as exibit CW-1/A.
• Copy of hand written complaint as exhibit CW-1/B.
• Copy of notice dated 07.06.2017 as exhibit CW-1/C.
• Copy of receipts dated 24.01.2016 (Colly) as exhibit CW-1/D.

9. OP2 has filed evidence by way of affidavit wherein following document have been exhibited:

• Copy of Log book signed by the Complainant during training as exhibit RW-1/A.
• Certificates of Complainant as exihibit RW-1/B.
• Copies of Statement of Ms. Babita Chhoker, Ms. Chanchal Sharma, Ms. Akhtar Bano, Ms. Sangita Yadav, Ms. Akansha Pal as exhibit RW-1/C, exhibit RW-1/D, exhibit RW-1/E, exhibit RW-1/F and exhibit RW-1/G.
• Copy of statement of Mr. Rahul Mehra given to the police as exhibit RW-1/H.
• Copies of statement jointly made before police by staff members i.e. Ms. Shadma Khan, Shri Anil  Kumar, Shri Rehman Khan, Ms. Sandhya, Ms. Muskan, Ms. Komal Chhabra, Ms. Deepty, Shri Ankush, Ms. Nidhi, Ms. Sangita, Mr. Billal Sheikh, Ms. Rita Negi, Ms. Angali as exhibit RW-1/I.
• Copy of FIR No.234/17 as exhibit RW-1/J.
• Copy of FIR No.235/17 as exhibit RW-1/K.

10. This Commission has heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and perused the documents on record. No arguments were put-forth by the OPs.
11. The case of the Complainant is that she joined Academy/Institution of the OPs on 06.10.2016 for Hair course, Makeup Course & Advance Makeup Course and she paid Rs.90,000/- as total fee for these courses to the OPs.
12. She attended some of the classes however subsequently on account of the conduct of Faculty Member Mr. Rahul Mehra in the Academy/Institute she felt humiliated and the matter went to the extent where she lodged FIR No. 234/2017 on 31.05.2017 against Mr. Rahul Mehra in Police Station Shakarpur. On account of the same, she was not comfortable and she did not attend the classes after 10.05.2017.
13. When Complainant sought refund of the fee as she could not complete the course, the same was refused by OP2 however OP2 has stated in her reply they are keeping ‘Course Completion Certificates dated 29.09.2017’ ready to be delivered to the Complainant.
14. The contention of the OP2 that the Complainant joined these courses to run her own training institute which is commercial in nature and the Complainant does not fall within the ambit the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the CP Act is untenable. Further the contention of the OP2 that the Complainant was signing as ‘Priya’ in place of her name (exhibit RW-1/A) has surprise element as to how it was permitted by the OP2. The Complainant has also refuted the same in her Rejoinder and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence - exhibit RW-1/A cannot be relied upon by OP2. The Complainant has stated in her complaint that she pursued the course in the OP’s Academy/Institution without giving any specific dates. The OP is charging for the service to be availed by the complainant and what the complainant would do with that training/ knowledge is not the concern of the OP. OP has to provide the service to the complainant and that service is not for commercial purpose and therefore the contention of OP is not well found.   
15. OP2 - Ms. Seema Goel (OP2) also filed an FIR No. 235/2017 on 31.05.2017 against the Complainant for harassing her for refund of the fee of Rs. 90,000/- charged by her. Both these cross FIRs were filed on the same day on 31.05.2017 in the same Police Station. This Commission is not going into controversy involved in both these FIRs and not expressing any opinion on the same.
16. With regard to the issue of deficiency in service on the part of OP2 in imparting training courses to the Complainant, the Commission is of the considered opinion that it was the primary duty of the OP2 to provide congenial atmosphere so that the training is given to that person (including Complainant) who has come to them for the same. The Complainant has contended that she faced humiliation and harassment during the course of her training in the premises of OPs and thus the OPs failed to provide in congenial atmosphere so that she could complete her training without any problem and this amounts to deficiency in service. The fact is proved when the OP2 is also labelling allegations against the complainant and has also filed FIR against her. 
17. As per her own version, the Complainant had attended some classes. OP2 has not stated in her reply about the duration of each course and it cannot be said that Complainant completed the training for these courses. OP2 has stated that the Course Completion Certificate dated 29.09.2017 of the Complainant are ready to be handed-over to her (exihibit RW-1/B). The onus was on the OP2 to establish that the Complainant had completed the courses she had enrolled in by producing documentary evidence however OP2 failed to do so.
18. Issuance of Course Completion Certificate (exihibit RW-1/B) is a serious action and carries lot of value and it allows the Certificate Holder to undertake his/her professional work forward on the basis of the same and it is prominently displayed also in the Shop etc. In the present case such certificate authorises that person to deal with the customers specially ladies who come to them for makeup etc. If, a person is issued Course Completion Certificate without actually completing it then it can be threat to health of such innocent customers also who come to them for makeup etc. as he/she is not fit and competent to do so.
19. Further OP2 has stated that she is franchisee of OP1. On account of facts detailed in the case, no liability can be fastened on OP1 but as far as OP2 is concerned it failed to provide congenial training atmosphere in her Academy/Institution to the Complainant and this Commission holds only OP2 liable for deficiency in service. The Complainant has submitted fee payment receipt of Rs.85,000/- which includes receipt of Rs.5000/- is towards kit which she is having. Thus in fact actual receipt of fee payment comes to Rs.80,000/- only.
20. In view of the above reasons and without expressing any opinion on the cross FIR No. 234/2017 & 235/2017 at Police Station Shakarpur this Commission for the reasons stated in above paras hold OP2 partly liable for deficiency in service and orders as follows:

• OP2 to refund Rs.40,000/- to the complainant with effect from 03.05.2018 along with interest @ 7% p.a.
• OP2 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and agony to the complainant.

No order as to legal cost.

The OP2 shall pay the above said amounts within 30 days of received of this order failing which OP2 shall pay interest @9% p.a. till the date of realization.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent both the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 10.04.2023.