Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/451/2020

Kartik Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIIT Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/451/2020
Date of Institution	:	13/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/08/2022

 

Kartik Mittal s/o Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal and Smt. Radha Rani r/o RN-19A, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. NIIT Ltd., Chandigarh Centre, SCO No.280, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Faculty Member Mr. Vikas.
2. NIIT Ltd. 85, Sector-32, Institutional, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Vice Counsel for Sh. S.R. Bansal, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, allured by the claim of the OPs, the complainant got himself enrolled in the Post Graduate Diploma in Banking Operations (PGDBO) course and deposited fee of ₹30,000/- vide receipt dated 22.10.2018.  He attended classes only one day when the faculty member created pressure on his mind that it was compulsory and necessary to secure more than 80% marks to get job in ICICI Bank and without that there would be no scope of getting job. Averred, the pressure had a demoralizing effect and the complainant told Mr. Vikas, Faculty Member of OP-1 that he would not able to continue and sought refund of fee.  However, the OPs failed to refund the fee despite personal visits, emails and legal notice. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and admitted that the complainant got himself enrolled in the PGDBO Program and paid the part fee of ₹30,000/- against total course fee of ₹78,000/-. Denied that any faculty member created pressure on the mind of the complainant or that the complainant sought refund on the first day. Maintained complainant is not eligible for any refund of the partial fee paid as he had already attended the class and received e-courseware from the OPs.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     The complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the consumer complaint.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present consumer complaint is that he got himself enrolled with the OPs in the Post Graduate Diploma in Banking Operations (PGDBO), deposited the fee of ₹30,000/- and attended the class only for one day and as he was not satisfied with the class proceedings, he discontinued and sought refund of the fee from the OPs. However, despite various personal visits, emails and legal notice by the complainant, OPs did not pay any heed towards his genuine request for refund.
7.     The stand taken by the OPs is that the complainant had only paid part fee of ₹30,000/- against the total course fee of ₹78,000/-.  As per the terms and conditions duly signed by the complainant he is not entitled for refund of the partial fee paid as he had already attended the class and received e-courseware from the OPs. 
8.     After going through the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant attended only introductory session and further did not attend the class even for a single day. So far as supplying of online course material is concerned, complainant has clarified about that in his rejoinder stating that the original classes were to commence after the introductory sessions which he attended and he did not obtain any course material online. Even the password was not shared by the OPs for supplying of e-course material.  To this effect no evidence has been adduced on record by the OPs to corroborate their defence.  As the complainant had attended only the introductory session and sought refund on the very first day meaning thereby the complainant never attended the class or obtained any course material online. However, it is a matter of fact that the complainant took admission with the OPs at his own sweet will. Hence, we are of the opinion that as the complainant did not avail any service from the OPs, it will be apt to pass an order of refund in favour of the complainant after deduction of 10% amount from the fee paid. 
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹27,000/- (₹30,000/- - 10%) to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/08/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member