Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/163/2023

POSSIBLE EDUCATION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NITYANANDAN GARG AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

VIREN SIBAL ADV.

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/163/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	13/07/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	01/12/2023

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Possible Education Private Limited, having its registered office at 25-B, First Floor, Ashok Marg, Sikander Bagh Crossing, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. 226001.

 

2.     Sh.Satyam Shankar Sahai, Chairman, CLAT Possible Education

 

3.     Surabhi Modi Sahai, Director

 

Both Directors of Possible Education Private Limited, having its registered office at 25-B, First Floor, Ashok Marg, Sikander Bagh Crossing, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. 226001.

 

4.     CLAT Possible Centre, O/o Possible Education Pvt. Ltd., SCO 309-310, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Incharge – Priyanka Dhillon.

 

….Appellants

Versus

 

1.     Nitya Nandan son of Sanjay Garg, through his father Sanjay Garg. 

 

2.     Sanjay Garg father of Nitya Nandan Garg. 

 

Both residents of House No. 1102, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.

…. Respondents

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Viren Sibal, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

[2]

 

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/46/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	13/10/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	01/12/2023

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Nitya Nandan son of Sanjay Garg, through his father Sanjay Garg. 

 

2.     Sanjay Garg father of Nitya Nandan Garg. 

 

Both residents of House No. 1102, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Petitioners

Versus

 

 

1.     Possible Education Private Limited, having its registered office at 25-B, First Floor, Ashok Marg, Sikander Bagh Crossing, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. 226001.

 

2.     Sh.Satyam Shankar Sahai, Chairman, CLAT Possible

 

3.     Surabhi Modi Sahai, Director

 

Both Directors of Possible Education Private Limited, having its registered office at 25-B, First Floor, Ashok Marg, Sikander Bagh Crossing, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. 226001.

 

4.     CLAT Possible Centre, O/o Possible Education Pvt. Ltd., SCO 309-310, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Incharge – Jeetendra Brar.

5.     Ms. Nidhi Mahajan.

 

6.     Jeetendra Brar.

 

Both Employees/ Centre Incharge at CLAT Possible Centre, O/o Possible Education Pvt. Ltd., SCO 309-310, Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the Petitioners.
		Sh. Viren Sibal, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of above captioned cases i.e. A/163/2023 filed by the Appellants/ OPs (Possible Education Private Limited & Others Vs. Nitya Nandan Garg & Anr.) and Revision Petition i.e. RP/46/2023 filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Complainants (Nitya Nandan Garg & Anr. Vs. Possible Education Pvt. Limited), against the order dated 03.05.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. Lower Commission’), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/885/2022, filed by the Complainants  (S/Sh.Nitya Nandan Garg and Sanjay Garg), against Opposite Parties (Possible Education Pvt. Ltd. & Others), by passing the following order: -

“8]     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

i.       to refund fee of six months i.e. an amount of ₹25,000/- to the Complainants along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this Complaint, till realization.

ii.      to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the Complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.

iii.     to pay ₹7,000/- to the Complainants as costs of litigation.

9]       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.”

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the same can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

4.         Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainants that they availed the services of the Opposite Parties for coaching for CLAT entrance examination for admission to LL.B. course in National Law Universities in India. The Complainants were assured the best coaching classes on behalf of CLAT Possible and were told that classes would be conducted for two years from June 2021 to June 2023. Accordingly, the complainants had paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- to the Opposite Parties. It was alleged that right from the very beginning, the services of the Opposite Parties were not upto the mark and even no study material was provided taking plea that the same has not been received from their Head Office. In the meantime, the CLAT Possible exam, which was scheduled to be held in June 2023, was preponed to be conducted in December 2022. At that stage, when the complainants asked for the refund for the period from December 2022 to June 2023, the Opposite Parties flatly refused to refund the fees paid for the said period and the complainants were told that the extra classes and best coaching would be provided and the students would be compensated with more effort and hard work by teachers because of the preponement of the CLAT Exam. However, the Opposite Parties stopped giving further coaching from expert teachers, but only appointed an ex-student who was not even graduate. When the Complainant No.1 objected to the same, the Opposite Parties flatly refused to give further coaching to him; whereas, only two months were left in the CLAT exam. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

5.         In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Party pleaded that the Complainants were well aware that only CLAT examination was preponed to the month of December 2022 and all other entrance exams were scheduled till May 2023. Since the Complainant No.1 continued to attend classes for preparation of those entrance exams, therefore, question of refunding fee does not arise. It was submitted that the study material was provided to all the students at the same time and Complainant No.1 also received whatever study material that was present including the purple book which was the bone of the contention. It is also submitted that the complainant No.2 himself sought the advice of the alleged non-graduate teacher who had been very proficient and actively clearing the doubts of the Complainant No.2. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

6.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission partly accepted the Complaint and issued directions to the Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

7.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, Appeal No. 163 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties (Possible Education Private Limited & Others Vs. Nitya Nandan Garg & Anr.) and Revision Petition i.e. RP/46/2023 has been filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Complainants (Nitya Nandan Garg & Anr. Vs. Possible Education Pvt. Limited).

 

8.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced.

 

9.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

10.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant matters deserve to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

11.         It is the case of the Complainant that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.  Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that there was a compromise entered into between the parties by way of the compromise where the counsel for the Complainant suffered a statement that the Complainant shall not pursue the complaint as well as other complaints filed by them, but even after that the Ld. Lower Commission entertained an e-mail sent by Respondent No.2, which is not permissible under law. However, we are not inclined to accept this limb of argument advanced by for the Learned Counsel for the Appellants for the simple reason that the Complainants, as the dominus litis, that is, master of the case and, hence, the “best Judge of their own interest” are vested with the right to choose the remedy. The Ld. Lower Commission therefore rightly entertained the e-mail by Respondent No.2. Reliance placed by the Learned Counsel  for the Appellants on Sarguja Transport Services Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior, 1987 (1) SCC 5, in support of his argument is completely misplaced, misapplied and thus cannot be allowed to derive any help therefrom.       

 

12.         Now coming to the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the Complainants/Respondents availed the services of the Appellants/Opposite Parties for coaching for CLAT entrance examination for admission to LL.B course in National Law Universities in India as also for other competitive examinations. It is also an admitted fact that classes was to be conducted for two years from June 2021 to June 2023 and the Complainants paid the prescribed fee of ₹1,00,000/- to the Appellants in June 2021. However, in the meantime, the CLAT Possible exam, which was scheduled to be held in June 2023, was preponed to be conducted in December 2022 and at that stage, when the complainants asked for the refund for the period from December 2022 to June 2023, but the Opposite Parties flatly refused to refund the fees paid for the said period relying on the of terms and conditions as per which fee once paid was not refundable. The question now left to be determined by us, is, as to whether refund of fee as ordered by the Ld. Lower Commission vide the impugned order was justified or not. The answer to this question is in affirmative due to the simple reason that the terms and conditions/declaration, if any, signed by the complainants is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Appellants and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice.  The Appellants being a coaching centre indulged into unfair trade practice by not refunding the fee paid by the Complainants and tried to usurp the same, which was their hard earned money. We opine that the Respondents/ Complainants are definitely entitled to refund of fees as ordered by the Ld. Lower Commission below vide the impugned orders. To cap it all, the Appellants have no right to retain the fees for a period of six months due to preponement of the CLAT examination. Therefore, this Commission seriously feels that it is in the interest of Complainants that the Appellants refund the fees for the period the student did not attend the classes. By not refunding the fees for a period of six months, the Appellants have indulged in unfair trade practice.  In these precincts, the Ld. Lower Commission rightly passed the order impugned before us. Under above circumstances, no case is made out, in favour of the Appellants /Opposite Parties.

 

13.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

14.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

15.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

16.         Now coming to the Revision Petition bearing No.RP/46/2023 filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Complainants (Nitya Nandan Garg & Anr. Vs. Possible Education Pvt. Limited), it may be stated here that as an offshoot of above discussion, no case is made out, in favour of the Revision Petitioners/ Complainants. Consequently, the Revision Petition bearing No. RP/46/2023, filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Complainants is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

17.         Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.     

 

18.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the records of RP/46/2023.

 

19.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

20.         The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

01^st December, 2023                                                                   

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”