DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A., B.L.,                                                                            ....MEMBER -I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                ......MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.84/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

Mr.Jeffin Mathew, S/o.Mr.Mathew Francis,

Theruvil(h), Pala (P.O),

Kottayam District. Kerala.                                                                  ……Complainant.  

                                                                                 //Vs//

1.M/s.Ken and Headway Consulting LLP,

   Rep. by its Designated partner 

   Mr.Promothkumar Munuswamy,

   No.133/54, EG Nagar, Attanthangal,

   Chennai 600 052.

   Also at 

   Apex Plaza, 2nd Floor,

   Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034.

 

2.Ms.Cathy, Manager,

    Ken and Headway Consulting LLP,

    Apex Plaza, 2nd Floor,

    Nungambakkam High Road,

    Chennai -600 034.                                                                     …..opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  :  M/s.E.Santhanalakshmi, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties           :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 22.09.2022 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties  along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.32,500/- cost paid by the complainant for the certificate course namely ‘Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator’ and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

It was submitted by the complainant that he was an MCA graduate and working as Cyber Forensical Analyst in an reputed IT Company.  For his professional up-gradation he wanted to undergo a certificate course namely ‘Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator’ (CHFI).  Accordingly, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party institution namely “Ken and Headway” during April 2018 for pursuing CHIF course by EC Counsel.  Based on the email of 2nd opposite party dated 02.04.2018 the complainant made payment of Rs.32,500/- towards the registration cum course fee, however there had neither been an acknowledgement for receipt of payment nor any communication on further course of action from their side.  It was submitted that he wrote several emails to 2nd opposite party enquiring the status of his training sessions.  Prior to receiving the payment, the 2nd opposite party had informed that the exam would be completed on or before 18.04.2018.  However, after receipt of the payment, her attitude has completely changed and there was no communication till 04.05.2018.  The complainant had been continuously trying to reach either of the opposite parties through phone calls and emails but all efforts in vain.  On frustration, the complainant by his email dated 15.05.2018 requested to refund the money that was paid.  Thereafter the 2nd opposite party confirmed through email and scheduled for a two days training session on 09th and 10th June 2018.  The complainant states that the course duration was actually 5 days as informed by the opposite parties from the inception.  Suddenly the duration of training program has been reduced for 2 days by them unilaterally. Complainant further states that he attended the course as re-scheduled and was waiting for the exam voucher.  The complainant was told that the exam voucher would be given before 18th July 2018 but nothing has happened till today.  Thereafter, the 2nd opposite party stopped picking calls of the complainant and also went to the extent of barring incoming calls from his mobile number.  It was very unethical, unprofessional and unexpected behavior from an educational institution like 1st opposite party to receive money and keeping the customers unattended.  Whenever, the complainant contacted landline number of the 1st opposite party, they used to say that the 2nd opposite party was out of office and other irresponsive reasons.  Delay caused by the opposite parties in arranging the said course consequently affected his promotion and appraisal in his latest period on account of lack of such additional qualification.  If the opposite parties arranged for the course and exam within the timeframe as promised, the complainant could have been promoted to higher posting. The delay in arranging training program and failure to obtain exam voucher from the EC council till date without even revealing the status of the application to the candidate, is a clear case of deficiency in service. Despite the gross delay in conducting the said course and fixing exam, the opposite parties had failed to keep the complainant informed about the tentative exam schedule. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;

⦁ To direct the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.32,500/- cost paid by the complainant for certificate course namely ‘Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator;

⦁ To pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

 On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A3. Despite service of notice the 1st opposite party did not turn up before this commission to file any written version and hence he was called absent and was set exparte on 19.03.2020 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.  Further in view of memo filed by the complainant’s counsel dated 07.10.2021 complaint against the 2nd opposite party is dismissed as not pressed.

Points for consideration:

⦁ Whether the complaint is maintainable?

⦁ Whether the alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant with regard to the course conducted by the opposite party?

⦁ If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

  Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;

⦁ Bank Account Statement was marked as Ex.A1;

⦁ Email communications was marked as Ex.A2;

⦁ Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 24.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;

The complainant did not appear before this commission for oral arguments and hence after providing sufficient opportunities we decided to consider the written arguments filed by the complainant as oral argument to decide the complaint allegations on merits.

As this commission is aware about the existing legal proposition that no complaint is maintainable against the educational institution we decided to discuss whether the present complaint is maintainable.  Thus we come across various decisions and partially a decision rendered by NCDRC in Revision Petition No.2006/2019, Principal LDRP Institute of Technology and Research Vs Apoorv Sherma it has been discussed elaborately about the applicability of Consumer Protection Act for Educational Services.  It was discussed in the said decision as follows;

 

 

 

  

 

On going through the decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission we come to a conclusion that the complaint is maintainable before this commission with respect to Educational consultancy.

Point No.2:

The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that for his professional up-gradation he wanted to undergo a certificate course namely ‘Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator with the opposite party and had paid Rs.32,500/- which fact was proved vide Statement of Account (Ex.A1).  However, it is alleged that the opposite party failed to conduct the exam and to give the certificate within the specified time. Even they were not proper in conducting the course session.  Thus the complainant wanted to refund of the amount paid by him. On verifying document Ex.A1 we could see that the complainant had made net payment on 05.04.2018 to the opposite party for a sum of Rs.32,500/-.  Further via email sent by the opposite party dated 02.04.2018 they informed about the exam to be completed on before 18th April confirming the certification course applied by the complainant.  Further they have also confirmed the payment of Rs.32,500/-.  However vide email dated 26.04.2018, 03.05.2018 and 15.05.2018 the complainant being aggrieved by the non intimation about the course training and examination to be conducted had sought for refund of the course fee. However, till the month of October 2018 the complainant had waited for the examination to be conducted or for refund of money which was not answered by the opposite party.  We could find from the email submitter that the opposite party did not attend the phone calls made by the complainant and also did not turn up before this commission.  In such circumstances we hold that the complainant had successfully proved the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.3:

As we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service we thought it is appropriate to direct the opposite party to refund the course fee of Rs.32,500/-paid by the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant by not conducting the course and issuing the certificate.  We also award Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the 1st opposite party

a) to refund a sum of Rs.32,500/- (Rupees thirty two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant

c)  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization. 

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10th day of October 2022.

 

       -Sd-                                                                               -Sd-                                                               -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ................ Bank Account Statement. Xerox

Ex.A2 ................ Email communications. Xerox

Ex.A3 24.12.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie parties. Xerox

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

 

Nil

 

 

     -Sd-                                                        -Sd-                                                 -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                          MEMBER I                                     PRESIDENT