Haryana

Ambala

CC/305/2018

Udit Pande - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SSB Guide - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Verma

02 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :    305 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :     14.09.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :     02.11.2021.

         

Udit Pande, aged about 17 years (Minor) through his natural guardian and father Kishan Kumar Pande r/o Belvedere Compound, Mallital, Nainital- UK, 263002                                                                         

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

 

1.       M/s SSB Guide through its Prop. Arpit Chaudhary s/o Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary.

2.       Arpit Chaudhary S/o Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary r/o H.No. 350, B-1 Bazar, (Lal Kurti Area), Ambala Cantt (HR).

                                                                     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Aditya Verma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Nitesh Saini, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To close the institute with immediate effect and to pay Rs.35,000/-.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

          Brief facts of the case are that OP no.1 is a private firm and OP no.2 is its proprietor. OPs are conducting coaching classes for theory and practical/physical, for clearance of various Indian Army and Defence employment entrance exams like SSB (SEMA SHASHASTER BAL) NDA (NATIONAL DEFENSE ACADMY), CDS (COMBIND DEFENCE SERVICES) AFCAT (AIR FORCE COMMON ADMISSION TEST). OP no.2 created media channel on you tube, as well as created various blogs and websites for his advertisement in order to fetch clientage.  As per video uploaded on YOUTUBE, OP no.2 had claimed that he would provide coaching to the batch of 30 students called “super 30” for various Army and Defense Employment Courses. The fee structure for the above courses will be from Rs.15000 to Rs.30000, depending upon duration and type of courses.  However, in the you tube video, there is no mention of about the terms and conditions, for admission in any of the courses, referred to above. OP no.2 merely had given statement regarding mode of payment and the facilities which shall be provided during the course. Complainant wanted to pursue his carrier in Indian Army, therefore, he opted to get coaching, for CDS entrance exam. On coming to know about the advertisement by OPs, on internet, complainant connected the OP no.2, telephonically and as per directions of OP no.2, got himself registered with the OP no.1 through website. Complainant paid Rs.1000/- as registration charges. Total fee for NDA exam was Rs.35,000/-, out of which complainant paid Rs.34,000/-, vide receipt No.067 dated 17.07.2018. Complainant paid the fee amount to the OPs, through internet banking system. OPs assured the complainant that they will provide best facilities regarding boarding and lodging.  On the first day of joining, complainant found that tutor himself was confused and had no clarity of concept as he was not able to answer the queries of complainant. Complainant also observed that only 2-3 students were enrolled in the batch.  OPs befooled the complainant to get the admission in the institute. The accommodation provided by the OPs was not worth living as there was foul smell all over the area.  OPs were not equipped with necessary logistics and infrastructure, as such, he left with no option but to leave the course. At the time of admission, OPs assured him that if any student want to leave the course then he can do it within five days of joining, with full fee return except the registration charges.  Complainant left the institute of OPs, on 4^rd day from the date of joining and he requested the OPs to refund the fee amount. But the OPs not only refuse to refund the fee amount but also shunted out him from the accommodation in the night hours. By not refunding the entire fee amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands.  The OPs have no concern with the present complaint as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs. The OP No.2 namely Shri Arpit Chaudhary is not the proprietor of M/s SSB Guide nor he has any concern with it. OPs denied all the averments of the complainant even on merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Arpit Chaudhary son of Shri Sanjeev Chaudhary, # 350, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. and affidavit of Shri Shri Ashok Kumar Behal son of Shri Banarasi Dass Behal, # Sanatan Dharma Quarter, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A & OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully as well as written arguments filed by counsel for the OPs.

5.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs raised the objection that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder/ mis-joinder of necessary parties because Shri Arpit Chaudhary is neither the proprietor of M/s SSB Guide nor has any concern with the said institute. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had taken admission in the M/s SSB Guide Institute and paid the fee amount of Rs.34,000/-, vide receipt No.067 dated 17.07.2018, Annexure C-2, to the said institute. Therefore, this objection raised by the learned counsel for the OPs is baseless.

6.                From the perusal of the receipt dated 17.07.2018, Annexure C-2, it is apparent that the email of Arpit Chaudhary is mentioned on the receipt and the signature put on the said receipt duly match with the signature put on the affidavit of Shri Arpit Chaudhary, which has been tendered by the OPs, as Annexure OP-A. Thus, it can easily be said that M/s SSB Guide, authorized Shri Arpit Chaudhary to issue the fee receipts on its behalf, which shows that Shri Arpit Chaudhary is managing the affairs of the SSB Guide in some capacity. It is not out of place to mention here that complainant hired the services of the SSB Guide by paying the consideration amount. Merely because the name of the proprietor has wrongly been mentioned by the complainant, does not absolve the liability of the SSB Guide, in case, complainant succeed to prove any deficiency in service on its part. As such, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant against M/s SSB Guide i.e. OP No.1, is maintainable. Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the OPs that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties is not tenable, hence, rejected. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to expunge the name of the OP No.2, being not a necessary party. Accordingly, the present complaint filed against the OP No.2, is liable to be dismissed.

7.                On merits, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the Ops failed to provide proper coaching and other facilities, as a result whereof, complainant left the course on the very third day. Complainant is thus entitled to get the refund of the fee amount paid by him. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the services have not been availed from the OP No.1, by the complainant, then question to withhold the fee amount by the OP No.1, does not arise. In this view of the matter, we hold that the OP No.1, is liable to refund the fee amount of Rs.34,000/-, paid by the complainant, vide receipt No.067 dated 17.07.2018. OP No.1 is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.   

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it in the following manner:-

(i) To refund the fee amount of Rs.34,000/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 4% per annum w.e.f 14.09.2018 i.e date of filing of complaint, till its realisation.

(ii) To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 02.11.2021.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member             President