Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint presented by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponent alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.<br /> 2. The complainant in the complaint has alleged that due to pressure of the opponent, on 25.03.2006 for getting computer education given to his children under Blue Package paid Rs.9,000/- towards fee, and Rs.875/- towards books, but, the opponent did not commence the class during summer vacation of 2006 as promised. That his children on two occasions approached the opponent, but the opponent had told him that they inform the date through phone and sent them back. Vacation for the year 2006 was over thereafter he wrote 5 letters to the opponent requesting it to refund the amount. But, the opponent has neither replied those letters nor refund the amount. On 12.09.2006 and 07.10.2006 he again contacted the opponent to refund the amount, but the opponent has failed to refund and therefore prayed for directing the opponent to refund his amount and also compensation of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> 3. The opponent has filed it’s version admitting the fact that the complainant had opted a computer course to his sons by paying the course fee, but denied that he did not conduct classes as alleged in the complaint. It has also denied to have agreed to conduct the course during the vacation. That the complainant understood the terms and conditions of the course when he paid the course fee and stated that it had allotted batches in the month of April 2006, but the complainant’s sons did not attend the course and therefore it is because of the omission of the complainant, computer education could not be given to his sons and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> 4. In the course, the enquiry of this complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence in support of his complaint and produced certain letters published by the opponent inviting the public to take up computer course. Besides producing copies of several letters he had addressed to the opponent. On behalf of the opponent one Srinivasan who is a Director has filed his affidavit evidence. <br /> 5. Heard the complainant and counsel for the opponent and perused the records.<br /> 6. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opponent has employed unfair trade practice and caused deficiency in service? <br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 and 2 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Points no. 1 & 2:- After understanding the pleadings of parties, we have found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the complainant accepting a computer course with the opponent and paying course fee of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.875/- towards books etc. But, the allegation of the complainant is that despite is approach with the opponent and writing several letters, the opponent neither respond to commence the course nor refunded the money. Whereas the opponent has denied those allegations and on the other hand contended it was the sons of the complainant who did not turn up to the course. Therefore, it was because of their omissions, they could not be given computer course with, this controversy. In this proceeding, we shall now examine the contentions of the parties basing on the materials placed before this Forum. <br /> 9. On perusal of certain letters of the opponent produced by the complainant, they reveal that the opponent offering to impart computer education to the intended public have propagated and offered stating that it’s computer education is the spring board that will launch the students it a range of specialized I.T. service and that in terms they lead them to the status of a comprehensive I.T. solution provider with other propagandas and that it is the one of best organization, which is engaged in giving a best computer education with other packages. Accordingly the complainant given declaration by paying course fee of Rs.9,000/- and books cost of Rs.875/-. Application has been given by the Complainant on 25.03.06 and it is his case that opponent had agreed to commence the course during summer vacation of 2006, as his sons were studying in regular schools and that the opponent had promised that 90% of the portion will be completed during that summer vacation. The complainant in the Complaint has further stated that he thereafter even contacted the opponent through phone, but the opponent did not respond to them to commence the course. The opponent in the version filed except general denial of not commencing their course has not specifically denied the approach of the complainant and his telephonic request to intimate the date of commencement of the course. <br /> 10. The complainant has produced a copy of the letter dated 09.05.06, another letter dated 02.06.06 and three more letters dated 27.08.06, 26.07.06 and 12.09.06. The opponent has not denied the receipt of these letters and admitted it has not replied to any of those letters. The Complainant in all these letters has reiterated that the opponent on the date of receiving the application on 25.03.06 agreed to commence the course to his sons during summer vacation of 2006 and also promised to complete 80% of the portion during that vacation, but despite contacting the opponent personally, telephonically and even through these letters, the opponent neither commenced the course nor replied to those letters and therefore, the complainant has contended that when the opponent did not commence the course he is entitled for refund of money paid to the opponent. The counsel representing the opponent has cross-examined the Complainant and suggested that this Complainant has signed the declaration form and was aware that the course fee paid to them was not refundable and further suggested that the batches were allotted to the children of the Complainant, but the Complainant’s children themselves did not go to the course, the suggestion are denied by the witness. It is further suggested that to all the letters of the Complainant is referred to above, the opponent replied telephonically and that suggestion is also denied by the witness. Therefore, it becomes manifest that the opponent admittedly has not replied to any of these letters written by the Complainant to it, which are referred to above. The opponent has contended in the affidavit and in the cross-examination of the Complainant that batches were allotted to the children of the Complainant during April 2006, but the opponent sons did not join the course, but that is proved to be false. Because, if the opponent had really allotted the batches to the sons of the Complainant, the opponent being sufficiently a big organization must have prepared programmes of allotting batches for each course and maintained records in that regard. If the opponent had really allotted the batches to the sons of the Complainant it could have produced the programme chart of allotting batches to the opponent sons, but not produced. Even otherwise when the Complainant wrote a letter to the opponent on 09.05.2006 within about 15 days after payment of the course fee and complained that the opponent has not commenced the course. The opponent could have send a reply to that letter informing him that it has allotted batches to his sons, but they themselves did not opt to the course. The opponent’s silence to this letter dated 09.05.2006 and also their further silence to the remaining letters exhibit their omission in keeping up the promise they had made to impart computer education to the sons of the opponent. It is on perusal of all these evidence and documents no doubt remains in the mind of the Forum that the opponent after receipt of the course fee and cost of the books kept silent without commencing the course and without responding to number of calls made by the Complainant, which in our view is nothing but short or deficiency in service of the opponent.<br /> 11. The learned counsel appearing for the opponent invited our attention to the declaration given by the complainant wherein it is stated that the course fee paid is not refundable and it is stated that the wife of the Complainant has signed to it and argued that the Complainant was aware of the fact that the course fee paid by them was not refundable and therefore the Complainant is not entitled for refund of the course fee. No doubt, the Complainant has noted the fact for non-refundability of the course fee. Though the Complainant is signatory to it, but in our view it cannot proclude the Complainant. Because, the opponent after receipt of the course fee did not even commence the course despite several requests therefore it cannot take a shelter under that non-refundable of course fee and take advantage of its own default. If the opponent had exhibited it’s promptness in starting the course and accommdating the sons of the Complainant and if the Complainant had not responded to it, then the opponent could have taken a plea of non-refundable of course fee. In this case, the opponent who has committed breach of contract and promise cannot be permitted to take shelter under his own breach of promise and to retain the money of the complainant. On perusal of the pamphlets published by the opponent they shows that the opponent who has attracted the people with such attractive offers, made them to commit by paying moneys and thereafter has gone back from discharging its obligation. Therefore in our view it amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of service. As the result, we answer points 1 & 2 in the affirmative and hold that the Complainant is entitled for refund of the course fee, fee of books and also compensation. With the result, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opponent is directed to refund the course fee of Rs.9,000/- + cost of the books Rs.875/- within two months from the date of this order, failing which it is liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of payment. <br /> 3. The opponent is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant and Rs.500/- towards the cost of this Complaint.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />