Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/520

TANUJ JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NIIT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI

NEW DELHI-110058

 

C.C. NO.520 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Tanuj Jain

S/o Shri Rajender Kumar Jain

R/o C-202, Hari Nagar Clock Tower,

New Delhi-110064                                                              ...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

M/s NIIT Ltd,

B-1/624

Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110058                                                              ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION:	07.12.2018 01.11.2022  30.11.2022

CORAM

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Complainant in person

                OP ex parte.

 

ORDER

Per: Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Facts of the present complaint are summarised as under:

1. Complainant submits that in order to improve his computer knowledge and skills, in the last week of June, 2018, he was looking for an Institute which provides expert education and has a good reputation  so that he can take admission in the course of computer networking.  During this search, the complainant came across the OP and the representative of OP induced and persuaded the complainant to take admission in the course of computer networking run by them.  Though the complainant was not initially ready to take admission  in the course offered by the OP and straight away refused to succumb to their inducement, still representative of the OP  insisted the complainant to visit their Institute  at least once.  During the meeting with the representative of OP on 22.06.2018, he showed to the complainant  various kinds of documents, certificates and files and thus tried to create a false  impression upon the complainant  pertaining to their honesty and goodwill and gave to the complainant various offers.  Complainant submits that during conversation with the representative of OP, he  promised to the complainant  that their faculty is well qualified, it would be a personalised coaching  and the class would comprise  of one student i.e. the complainant and the timing of the course would be from 11.00AM till 1.00PM on alternate days and three days in a week except Sunday.  It was also promised  to the complainant that  all the study material  including books as well as soft copies  will be provided by the OP within two days  and there will be five free trial  classes and in case  the complainant is not  satisfied  with the quality of education during the  trial classes then the whole amount would be refunded  in one week.  Further, no time was given to the complainant to think and decide and complainant was told   that the offer of fee of Rs.56,808/-  for a period of 1.5 years coaching classes was valid for one day, i.e. 22.06.2018 as heavy discount was offered  whereas the actual fee is much higher and in case  the complainant does not make payment of entire amount  then none of the above  mentioned offers  would remain valid.  Thus, complainant was compelled by persistent persuasion  and inducement and  took  admission with the  OP on payment of a sum of Rs.56,808/- on 22.06.2018. However, nothing in writing including the prospectus was given  by the OP in spite of  specific request of complainant and only assurance that everything would be provided. Complainant submitted  that thereafter he joined trial classes after enrolment.
2. Complainant avers that  in the very first class, he received a set back as instead of networking course which was opted  by him, OP started teaching computer hardware course regarding which  he made an oral complaint  to the OP and got the assurance that the course would be changed soon. It was also shocking that contrary to the initial assurance and promises made by the OP to run a personalised course  for the complainant, there  were four students  in the class.  Complainant submitted that despite assurance initially, study material  with books and notes have not been provided to him till date. Apart from the above, the quality of coaching  as well as the environment  was very poor.  Due to all these issues, the complainant  raised grievance to leave the course and requested for the refund of fees in the very first class.  However, the complainant  was again assured that things will be sorted out and this way, complainant attended  2-3 more classes but without any improvement.
3. Complainant submits that  despite assurance, the stream of course was not changed from hardware to networking in further classes  despite requests by him.  Under such circumstances, after having attended 3-4 classes, complainant became disinterested  in attended the classes of computer  course. Accordingly, the complainant verbally requested Ms. Ruchi, representative of OP  to refund the fee of Rs.56,808/- paid by him to the OP and he was verbally assured by her that the fee shall be refunded soon.
4. It is the assertion of  complainant that at the time of taking the admission in the computer course, he was assured that the initially 5 classes will be on trial basis and if the complainant is not satisfied, his whole fee shall be refunded but after attending 4 trial classes, he made up his mind not to pursue classes at the OP institute and sought refund of the fees.  Since after making various requests, the fee paid by the complainant was not refunded, complainant realised  that the OP was playing a game and having mala fide intention to cheat him and to cause wrongful loss to him and gain to them.
5. Complainant contends that in order to seek refund of the money paid by him to the OP, he got sent a legal notice to the OP on 12.09.2018 also but without any success. Complainant submits that since the OP did not refund the amount of Rs.56,808/- paid by him to it, he was constrained to file the present complaint for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing embarrassment to him.
6. Complainant by way of this complaint, has sought following reliefs:

1.An amount of Rs.56,808/- illegally taken by the OP be refunded to the complainant along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of said paymenttill the date of actual payment.

2.An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensationfor lossand injury suffered by the complainanton account of deprivation, harassment and mental agony caused by the negligence and dereliction of duty by the OP.

3.An amount of Rs.11,000/- be awarded towards the cost of this complaint.

7.       Complainant filed  with this complaint, copy of the Acknowledgement Slip No.3790, dated 22.06.2018 towards receipt of Rs.30,000/- by the OP vide cheque No.3842, copy of another acknowledgement Slip  No.3792, dated 22.06.2018 towards receipt of Rs.26808/- from the complainant vide cheque No.5027, totalling to Rs.56,808/-

8.       Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP on  13.12.2018 for 19.03.2019.  The OP filed reply to the complaint.  In the reply, OP contended that the complainant has concealed material information and filed the present complaint on concocted and frivolous  grounds.  OP submitted that the complainant  has wrongly misrepresented that he only attended 2-3 classes  after joining the course ending June, 2018 whereas he was regularly attending classes at the OP Institute till 10 August, 2018, thereby attending almost 17 classes before stopping attending the classes. According to the OP, the complainant stopped attending the classes from 12.08.2018  onwards as he was not feeling well due to fever and never came back to their Institute.  It is submitted that the OP made number of  calls to the complainant for asking the reason of not attending the classes regularly  but the complainant through his parents has given the reason of his mental health for not attending the classes and never raised any reason as stated in the present complaint.  OP submitted that it is nowhere at fault but it is the mala fide intention of the complainant to put all the blame  on to OP’s head and tried to forcibly take back the money paid by him on the basis of false and concocted  story of not providing the education in which admission  was taken by the complainant.  OP contended that the attendance sheet is very much available with it  which shows the falsity of allegations levelled  against the OP in the complaint.

9. OP further contended that the complainant has wrongly mentioned in the complaint that he was persuaded by the OP representative  to join the course whereas it was the complainant who visited the office of OP to join the course and further attended the classes based on the reputation of the OP in the computer education.  He was admitted into the course  which the complainant wanted  to pursue but due to his own health, the complainant  failed to continue the course and this fact is very much proved from the attendance sheet. 
10. According to the OP, this complaint is abuse of process of law and  not maintainable  before Consumer Forum and hence liable to be dismissed  on the ground of  OP being an educational institution. 
11. OP denied the allegation of the complainant that   the OP showed documents and certificates  to the complainant just to create  false impression   but every Institute  does the same thing so that the student comes to know of the achievements  of the Institute and feels  proud in studying in it. According to OP, no offers or discounts were offered to the complainant in order to lure the complainant to take admission  in the course.  Further no promise  of getting personalised  coaching  and providing the study material  within two days of the trial classes was given.  However, the timings and trial classes  are matter of record.  OP denied having  compelled the complainant to  make payment same day as the offer was valid for  one day. According to OP no pressure was put on the complainant to pay the fee and join the trial classes after admission.
12.  OP also denied the averment of complainant that in the very first  class itself, the OP started teaching computer hardware instead of computer networking in which the complainant took admission.  According to the OP, the complainant has attended the classes regularly for two months and due to his ill health stopped appearing thereafter and not because of the issues faced by him in the trial classes.
13. OP also denied having taken the full fees for the complete course in the  beginning of the  course  before the trial classes.  OP also denied that the complainant had approached Ms. Ruchi working with OP for refund of fees. OP also denied that it had any dishonest intention to cheat and deceive the complainant. No mental harassment or agony has been caused to the complainant.  It vehemently objected to the defamatory language used  in the complaint  which is uncalled for  and the OP reserves its right to  initiate appropriate criminal and civil proceedings against the complainant.  
14. In rebuttal to the averments of OP taken in the reply, complainant filed rejoinder thereto.  He submitted that the reply has been signed by one Mr. Vijay Sharma, AR of Suman Computers Pvt. Ltd, whereas the complaint has been filed against OP.   Complainant reiterated that he attended only three classes.  Complainant also denied that he left the OP Institute because of fever.  He submitted that he left the OP because of  suffering on account of age related discrimination at the OP Institute and false promises  relating to education and non-refund of fees. Complainant also denied having made any defamatory or illegal comments in the complaint.  Complainant also  denied having received any calls from the OP as no call summary has been attached with the reply.
15. Complainant also refuted the objection  taken by the OP that the present complaint is not maintainable being an education matter.  He submitted that  OP  is not a Government  authorised  education institute but a private Institute and therefore, the present complaint is maintainable.
16. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the documents filed on record.  However, During the course of proceedings, after filing the reply, the OP did not put in appearance consistently nor filed affidavit of evidence  despite opportunities and accordingly, vide order dated  06.01.2020, OP was proceeded against ex parte.
17. Complainant filed written arguments on record. Oral arguments of the complainant were heard on 01.11.2022.  Complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint as also in the rejoinder affidavit.
18. Having gone through the pleadings filed on record, we find from the record that no documents  to show as to when the admission  was taken and as to how many trial classes were permitted in the computer course undertaken by the complainant, has been filed on record.  Further, to substantiate its claim that the complainant had attended almost 17 classes, the OP has not placed on record any document and only bald assertions are made.  OP has also not placed on record any policy of non-refund of the fee charged from the students/complainant.  The OP has also not shown any document  on record to prove its case that the fee was charged from the complainant after the trial classes and not before, as claimed by it.
19. As regards the plea of OP that the complaint is not maintainable as it is an education matter, we may note that  the complainant has claimed that he had attended the coaching classes run by OP institute only to improve his computer knowledge and no question of soliciting any educational degree is involved.  We concur  with the contention of the complainant on this score and reject the plea of the OP in this regard. 
20. For the foregoing  conclusions arrived at by us, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.56,808/- charged  as fee, along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the complaint till final realization.   For the harassment, mental agony and  compelling the complainant to file the present  complainant, the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
21. A copy of the order  shall be supplied free of cost , to parties to the dispute in the present complaint,  upon a written requisition being made in writing  in the name of President of the Commission in terms of Regulation 21 of the Consumer  Protection Regulations, 2020. 

File be consigned to record room.

 

(Richa Jindal)                                      (Anil Kumar Koushal)                   (Sonica Mehrotra)

   Member                                           Member                                 President