Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA
JUDGMENT
The Opposite Party is an educational institution, imparting training for management course. The Complainant had taken an admission with the Opposite Party – Institute; for M.B.A. Course and it was represented to him that there would be coaching classes on each Sunday. The Complainant paid admission fees in sum of Rs.37,000/-, under two cheques, each drawn for an amount in sum of Rs.18,500/-.
[2] It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party – Institute; never conducted coaching classes and deceived the Complainant. When the Complainant sought refund of fees in sum of Rs.37,000/-, the manager of the Opposite Party – Institute; avoided the same on one or the other pretext. The Complainant then served a legal notice for refund of admission fees and when the said notice was not complied with, the Complainant filed the present consumer complaint before this Forum.
[3] Initially, the notice of appearance issued to the Opposite Party – Institute; was returned unserved with postal endorsement – ‘Office Shifted’. The Complainant was then asked to furnish correct present postal address of the Opposite Party – Institute. Accordingly, the Complainant submitted the fresh address of the Opposite Party – Institute; and a notice of appearance was reissued by this Forum. This notice was duly served upon the Opposite Party – Institute. However, inspite of due service of notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party – Institute; chose to remain absent and did not file its written version on the record as called for by this Forum and as such, was set ex-parte.
[4] The Complainant filed his affidavit of evidence and copies of relevant documents.
[5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavit and documents filed by the Complainant.
[6] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:-
Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings |
1. | Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Institute? | YES |
2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to seek refund of fees from the Opposite Party – Institute? | YES |
3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
[7] Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant has produced on the record copies of the payment receipts, under which total amount in sum of Rs.37,000/- was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party – Institute. At page (07) of the compilation of the complaint, there is a copy of the admission letter issued by the Opposite Party – Institute; which reveals that the Opposite Party – Institute; had given admission to the Complainant for the M.B.A. course. At page (08) of the compilation of the complaint, there is a copy of an e-mail, by which the Complainant had expressed grievance that no classes were conducted as promised and he had decided to cancel the admission. This was followed by another e-mail. However, to both these e-mails, there was no reply from the Opposite Party – Institute. Even the notice served by the Complainant was not replied by the Opposite Party – Institute.
[8] As pointed out above, the Opposite Party – Institute; has not appeared before this Forum to deny the averments in the complaint, as also, has not filed its written version of defence to contest the complaint. Thus, the averments in the complaint have remained unchallenged. Even otherwise, copies of the payment receipts and copy of the admission letter establish that the Opposite Party – Institute; had given admission to the Complainant for the M.B.A. course and the Complainant paid and the Opposite Party – Institute; received an amount in sum of Rs.37,000/- towards fees. Since the coaching classes were never conducted, no service was ever rendered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party – Institute; and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Institute. The Complainant, in his affidavit of evidence, has deposed that when enquired on telephone, he was informed that since there was no adequate strength of students, the Complainant will have to study of his own and appear for the examination. This was contrary to the representation made to the Complainant while giving him admission to the M.B.A. course and collecting admission fees.
[9] It appears from the record that the Opposite Party – Institute; had issued two cheques to the Complainant, each for an amount in sum of Rs.18,500/- towards refund of fees, but both those cheques were dishonoured for the reason – ‘Funds Insufficient’. The Complainant has produced on the record copies of both these cheques and intimation letter received from the ICICI Bank. This shows that the Opposite Party – Institute; had shown an inclination to refund the fees to the Complainant. Thus, there is admission of liability on the part of the Opposite Party – Institute.
[10] In view of the above, the Opposite Party – Institute; is liable to refund fees to the Complainant in sum of Rs.37,000/-. The Complainant has sought refund of fees together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a., and at the same time, he has claimed compensation in sum of Rs.10,000/- from the Opposite Party – Institute. Since, we are inclined to award interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of last payment i.e. 14/10/2008, we are not inclined to award any separate compensation to the Complainant.
With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:-
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The Opposite Party shall pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.37,000/- towards refund of fees, together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., as from 14/Oct/2008 till realization of entire amount by the Complainant.
The Opposite Party shall also pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The Opposite Party is hereby directed to comply with the foregoing order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Rest of the claims of the Complainant stands rejected.
Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
