Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/504/2018

Mrs Anjali Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s VLCC Health Care Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Nagra

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/504/2018
Date of Institution	:	09/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	19/06/2019

 

Anjali Devi w/o Sh. Aditya Kumar, R/o Lalru Mandi, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali (Punjab), through his SPA Holder – Sh. Kishore Sarkar S/o Bipad Sarkar, R/o Near Akash Clinic, Lalru, S.A.S. Nagar.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      M/s VLCC Health Care Limited, SCO No. 62-63, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Director/ Authorized Person.

 

 

2.      M/s VLCC Health Care Limited, Corporate Office 64, HSIDC, Sector 18, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon, Haryana (India), through its Chairman/Authorized Person.

 

3.      M/s Capital Float Financial Services Private Limited, New No.3 (Old No.211), Gokaldas Platinum Upper Place Orchards, Bellary Road, Sadashivanagar Bengaluru Karnataka, through its Authorized Person.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harsh Nagra, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Varun Mittal, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
	:	Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         The facts, in brief, are, the Complainant took admission in Diploma in Cosmetology in the Institute of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 27.12.2017. The total fee of the said course was Rs.60,958/-. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6773/- vide receipt Annexure C-2 and opted for a loan for rest of the fee and a bank loan was made through Sh. Kishore Sarkar for a sum of Rs.60,959/-. The entire amount was thus paid to the Opposite Party No.1.  The course was to start from 02.01.2018. However, on 30.12.2017, the Complainant informed the Institute Manager that due to some personal difficulty she cannot attend the classes and wants to leave the course. The Manager advised her to give a cancellation letter, which the Complainant gave on 13.01.2018 with a request to refund the amount paid by her. However, when not even a single penny was refunded by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, the Complainant wrote e-mails (Annexure C-3 to C-6), but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant never approached them for alleged cancellation of seat at any point of time nor it is possible for them to cancel the same upon any alleged oral request of the Complainant. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         Admittedly, the total fee of the Cosmetology Diploma course in the Institute of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 was Rs.60,958/-. Per Annexure C-2, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,773/- with the Institute and for the rest of amount of Rs.60,959/- the Complainant opted for a loan through her family friend Sh. Kishore Sarkar and ultimately deposited the entire amount of fee with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
7.         The sole grouse of the Complainant is that the aforesaid Course had to start from 02.01.2018, but due to her personal reasons/difficulty, she could not manage to join the said course and conveyed her inability to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 prior to the commencement of the course on 30.12.2017. As per the case of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 sought one cancellation letter from her, which she submitted to them on 13.01.2018 with a request to refund the amount paid by her. However, despite various efforts, till date, not even a single penny has been refunded to the Complainant.
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that it is not possible for them to cancel the admission of the Complainant upon the alleged oral request and thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
9.         A meticulous scrutiny of the entire record reveals that in Para No.5 of the duly sworn affidavit of the Complainant, there is a specific mention that on 30.12.2017 she informed the Institute that due to some personal difficulty, she cannot attend the classes and on 13.01.2018, she visited the office of the Opposite Parties and submitted a cancellation letter to Opposite Party No.1, as per their requirement. This fact is further corroborated from Annexure C-4, which is an e-mail dated 22.06.2018, from one Sh. Kishore Sarkar regarding the issue, with a specific mention of the cancellation application dated 13.01.2018.
10.         In support of their claim, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 heavily relied upon Annexure OP-2, which is the copy of the attendance register, to contend that the Complainant never attended any of the classes of the Opposite Parties and argued that seat once allotted to a candidate cannot be cancelled or re-allotted to any other candidate. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, when the Complainant did not attend the classes even for a single day, then how the amount paid by her can be forfeited by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
11.         In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that once the Complainant did not attend the Institute even for a single day, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to refund the fees paid, after deducting reasonable administrative charges. It is settled proposition of law that no fee (including advance fee) can be illegally held by the Opposite Party for the period for which no coaching/service is being availed by the Complainant.
12.         It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have refunded the fees after deducting the reasonable administrative charges, which they failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Even after receiving the legal notice dated 03.07.2018, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to do the needful. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
13.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]   To refund Rs.58,958/- (after deducting Rs.2,000/- towards administrative charges) to the Complainant;

[b]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

14.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
15.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/06/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”