Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/29/2015

M/s.Jayanthi mala, D/o.Late Govinda samy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Bharath Sevak Samaj, National Development Agent, Rep by its Regional Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Samanth and Sron

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  02.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 02^nd DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.29/2015

 

 

Ms.Jayanthi Mala,

D/o Late. Govindasamy,

No.9/3, 3^rd Line, Saiva Muthaiah Street,

Broadway, Chennai – 600 001.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Bharat Sevak Samaj,

National Development Agent,

Rep by its Regional Manager,

BSS  Tower,

Bharathi Nagar First Main Road,

Tambaram West,

Chennai – 600 063.

 

2.M/s. BSS Cyber Solutions,

Rep by its Manager,

No.690, Poonamallee High Road,

2^nd Floor, (Near Lakshmi Theatre),

Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029.

 

 

3.M/s. BSS Cyber Solutions,

Rep by its Manager,

Cyber Bhavan, EVRA – 423,

Easwaravilasom Road,

Vazthuthacaud,

Thycaud (PO), Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala - 695 014.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 12.02.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Samanta and Ston, K.Livingston,

                                                                    A.Bakkiyalakshmi

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : Ex – parte

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties      : M/s. S.Arivazhagan, A.Rajavel,

                                                                     D.Kalaivani

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

 This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the fee amount of Rs. 33,000/- together with 24% interest and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant intended to take admission in the opposite parties computer institute to acquire knowledge about computer science. The 1^st opposite party was running the computer institute in the name of the 2^nd opposite party/ branch. The complainant took admission in the year 2011 to study the 6 months course HDCA (Honors Diploma Computer Application) in the month of October and totally paid a sum of Rs.5,550/- to the 2^nd opposite party on various dates. Though the fees received by the second opposite party, the bills were given in the name of the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant finished the course in time and got the certificate.

          2. The complainant again took admission for the course ADMP(Advanced Diploma Multimedia Programming) on 01.03.2012 and paid a total fees of Rs.9,950/- and received the receipts for payment.

          3.  On the advise of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant joined another course HDMP( Honour’s Diploma in Multimedia Programming)  on 25.05.2012 and for the said course the complainant totally paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on various  dates and received the bills. However no study materials were provided by the 2^nd opposite party for the said course. Further, there is no qualified tutors to impart education for the said course. Hence the complainant unable to complete the course due to the aforesaid deficiencies committed by the 2^nd opposite party.

          4. To improve the qualification and status of the complainant, he had joined diploma course DCHNE (Diploma in Hardware, Networking Engineering) with a duration of 6 months. For the said course the complainant paid a total fee of Rs.6,800/- on various dates.

          5. The complainant brought to the knowledge of the 2^nd opposite party that teaching was not good and audio and video classes conducted without speaker and for the one year HDMP course, the study materials was not furnished even after 2 years, the tutor incharge refused to explain and he directed to contact the 1^st opposite party. Therefore the complainant gave a legal notice dated 27.08.2014 to the opposite parties for the deficiency committed by them. The 2^nd opposite party gave reply dated 16.09.2014 with baseless averments. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to refund the fee amount of Rs. 33,000/- together with 24% interest and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

          6. The 1^st opposite party called absent and he was set ex-parte.     

7. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd   OPPOSITE PARTY AND ADOPTED BY THE 3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF :

          The 2^nd opposite party admits that the complainant joined HDCA course in the year 2011 and completed the course in time and got the certificate. She also joined ADMP course in the year 2012 and she completed the course and got the certificate. It is apparent that the complainant completed both the course without any problem.

          8. The complainant joined on her own HDMP course for the 3^rd time shows that there is no deficiency and incompetency on the part of the tutors of the 2^nd opposite party, imparting education to the complainant. The complainant is a irregular student and she has taken 8 months time to complete the first course and taken 14 months to complete the 2^nd course even though the duration for those courses are 6 months and 12 months respectively. The study material will be available online and no charges are collected for books and only tuition fees  was collected from the students. Hence the allegation that study material was not given will not stand. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

10. POINT NO :1        

          It is an admitted fact that the 2^nd  opposite party is the branch office of the 1^st opposite party imparting various courses of computer education and the 3^rd opposite party is the head office of the other opposite parties 1 & 2 and the complainant joined HDCA course with 6 months duration in the month of October 2011 and completed the course and got the certificate and again joined another course ADMP on 01.03.2012 and that course also completed by her and there after she joined the 3rd course HDMP on 25.05.2012 and also joined 4^th course DCHNE on 25.05.2012 and for the said courses the complainant had paid fees through Ex.A1-Ex.A19 on various dates from 2011 to 2014 totally a sum of Rs.33,300/- to the second opposite party.

          11.  The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties are that on joining the HDMP course she was not provided with study materials, system provided  was not working, tutors not clarified her doubts and not taken the classes regularly and hence she was unable to complete the courses HDMP and DCHNE and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          12. The complainant joined ADMP course on 01.03.2012 with duration of 6 months. According to the opposite party she took 8 months time to complete the said course. However before completing the said course, the complainant joined the 3^rd course HDMP with duration of 12 months and before completion of the said course, she had joined 4^th course DCHNE with the 2^nd opposite party. Unless a student has not satisfied with the imparting education in her earlier courses, she will not join next course with the very same institution. The complainant joined 3^rd and 4^th course shows that only after satisfying the education provided by the opposite parties  she had joined these courses. The study materials were available online was not disputed by the complainant. The complainant had not disputed that no other student studied and she is only one. When the other students were studying without any complaints, naturally the allegation made by this complainant will have no truth at all. Therefore the complainant alleged the deficiency has not been proved by her.

          13. It is not in dispute that the complainant had completed first two courses and got her certificates. As per Ex.A1 to A19 the complainant paid tuition fees around Rs.33,300/- including registration fee and she seeks to refund the entire said fees paid by her in the complaint establishes that only for her enrichment she had filed this complaint. Therefore we hold that the complainant has not proved the deficiencies committed by the opposite parties and hence, it is further held that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not committed any deficiency in service.                

14. POINT NO:2

           Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.      

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 02^nd   day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.10.2011                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 16.11.2011                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 01.12.2011                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 04.01.2012                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 23.01.2012                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 01.03.2012                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 07.03.2012                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A8 dated 14.03.2012                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A9 dated 17.03.2012                   Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A10 dated 26.04.2012                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A11 dated 25.05.2012                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A12 dated 26.05.2012                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A13 dated 31.05.2012                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A14 dated 30.10.2013                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A15 dated 31.10.2013                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A16 dated 01.12.2013                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A17 dated 25.01.2014                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A18 dated 14.04.2014                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A19 dated 17.05.2014                 Bill given by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A20 dated 27.08.2014                 Legal Notice issued to the opposite parties

Ex.A21 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement card for 1^st opposite party    

Ex.A22 dated NIL                             Returned cover of 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2014                 Reply notice issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A24 dated  April 2015       Certificate of  Training

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd & 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      …… NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT