Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/107/2024

VEENA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S THINK LEARN PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/107/2024
Date of Institution	:	26.2.2024
Date of Decision	:	2/08/2024

 

Veena  Rani wife of Sh. Mohinder Singh, aged 41 years, resident of House No. 803, Tower 11, Motia Blue Ridge, Peer Muchalla, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

.Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Think Learn Private Limited, (BYJU'S Tuition Centre), SCO 91, 92 & 93, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP exparte

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the son of the complainant studying in 7^th class and on obtaining information about the complainant’s son namely Naman, the authorized Agent (hereinafter referred to be as AR)  of OPs namely Nitik Sharma approached the complainant and visited her house and allured the complainant to obtain the service of the OP i.e. tuition course  for 7^th,  8^th and 9^th class for her son for a period of three years course, which was helpful for the bright future  of the complainant’s son. It was assured by the AR of the OP that the course will be very effective and economical for the complainant’s son as the OP will provide the service for three years  including the transportation service, doubt clearing session on every Sunday,  learning station will be provided free of cost  and Byju’s bag will also be provided by the OP and classes will start from April 2023.  The complainant being allured with the aforesaid assurances of the AR of the OP, agreed to avail the services of OP for her son for which the OP charged Rs.71,000/-  out of which the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- through debit card of HDFC Bank and remaining amount of Rs.61,000/-  was financed from HDFC Bank Limited, Phase-I, Chandigarh. The copy of statements is annexed as Annexure C-1 and C-2.  As per assurance  of the AR of OP, the son of the complainant attended trial classes for 15 days and arranged the transportation at its own though the AR of the OP had assured that transportation services will be provide to the son of the complainant. On the completion of trial period, when the complainant requested the OP to provide transportation service to her son to attend the classes but instead of fulfilling the commitment, the AR of the OP had sent mail dated 25.4.2023 through which it was confirmed to the complainant that transportation charges included in the fee of the tuition for three years and the said AR discussed the matter with his senior Central team of the OP. However, despite of that the OP failed to provide the transportation service. Accordingly,  the complainant decided to cancel the admission regarding which email Annexure C-4 was sent by the complainant to the OP on 1.6.2023 for cancelation of admission and requested for refund of the paid amount. Thereafter emails were exchanged between the parties but the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, the copies of emails are annexed as Annexure C-5(colly) and the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.  OP  was properly served and when OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 29.4.2024.

2. In order to prove her claim the complainant has tendered/proved her evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that   the complainant had admitted her son Naman   in the institute of OP  for three years tuition course with first session starting w.e.f. April 2023 on paying Rs.71,000/- as is evident from Annexure C-1 and C-2 statement of account but the OP has not provided transportation services as promised  to the son of the complainant as a result of which she was compelled to cancel the admission, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainant required to be scan carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.10,000/- debited from the account of the complainant. Annexure C-2 indicates that an amount of Rs.61,000/- was financed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. in favour of the complainant for payment to the OP and the complainant has been paying monthly installment to the bank for the said loan amount.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-3 copy of email sent by the AR of the OP clearly indicates that the AR of the OP had assured the complainant that transportation service will be provided in the same fees of Rs.71,000/- and he shall discuss the matter with the higher authority of OP. Annexure C-5(colly)  is emails exchanged between the parties which clearly indicate that the a request was made to the OP for cancellation of the admission and refund of the paid amount  but the matter was delayed by the OP on the one pretext or the another  and no refund was made to the complainant.
   4. As it stands proved on record that the OP had not provided transportation services to the son of the complainant as per promise made to the complainant despite of the fact that they had charged Rs.71000/- from the complainant which also included transportation charges  as is also evident from Annexure C-3 and compelled the complainant to ask the OP for cancellation of admission of her son and despite repeated requests made by the complainant the OP did not refund the paid amount, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid     act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹71,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/08/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member