DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 28 of 23.01.2008<br /> Decided on : 31-03-2008<br /> <br /> S.P. Sharma S/o Late Sh. Ram Partap Sharama, R/o House No. 21864, Power House Road, Near Shiv Mandir, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Prof. Harbhajan Singh, Managing Director, Harbhajan's Institute of Competitions Near GTB Chowk, Bathinda.<br /> ...Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Rajan Sharma, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Vishal Sharma is the minor son of the complainant. He was willing to seek admission in the Foundation course of IIT-JEE. Complainant had approached the opposite party for this purpose. Assurance was given by him (opposite party) that he has qualified staff having technical experience of their respective courses/trades who are teaching with full devotion and that the results of his Institute are very good. He was further told that his Institute is well known not only in Punjab but through out India. Believing the assurance, prospectus was purchased. His son Vishal Sharma had got the admission in the Foundation course of IIT-JEE in the month of April, 2007. A sum of Rs. 16,854/- was deposited by him as first installment. Second installment of Rs. 16,854/- was deposited on 7.6.07. Similarly another sum of Rs. 16,854/- was deposited on 8.8.07 as third installment. In this manner, he deposited Rs. 50,562/- with the opposite party. After his son was got admitted, it came to his (complainant's) knowledge that there is no qualified or competent staff in the Institute of the opposite party. Entire staff is out of Punjab. There are no proper teaching arrangements. Staff does not attend the classes for couple of days. There are no lab facilities in the Institute. Requests were made to the opposite party to arrange qualified staff, but he paid no heed. It is alleged that the opposite party is playing with the life and carrier of the students and was wasting their valuable time including that of his son. He got issued legal notice dated 20.9.07 reply of which was sent by the opposite party. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to refund Rs. 50,562/- alongwith interest; pay Rs. 30,000/- as damages besides cost of litigation.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer; complaint is not maintainable; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; intricate and contentious questions of facts and law are involved which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence and as such, it cannot be decided by this Forum in a summary manner; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint keeping in view the nature of relief sought by the complainant and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, his plea is that complainant has no right to file the complaint in his individual capacity. He admits that Vishal Sharma son of the complainant had sought admission in his Institute on 15.4.07 and had duly submitted the admission Form. It was presented by the complainant being father and guardian of Mr. Vishal Sharma. Complainant had specifically admitted the terms and conditions in the admission form after understanding and admitting them as correct. Complainant and his son were satisfied about teaching faculty and facilities provided in the Institute. He admits that a sum of Rs. 50,562/- was deposited. Inter-alia his plea is that amount is not refundable in view of the specific terms agreed by the parties. Amount was deposited by the complainant voluntarily. Option of the complainant to pay the amount at subsequent stage clearly indicates that his son had accorded satisfaction towards education being received by him from the Institute. Complainant after being satisfied had deposited the amount. Story has been concocted by the complainant to cover the lapse on the part of his son who is not attending the Institute. It is added by him that teaching faculty of the Institute is well qualified in their respective fields and on the subjects being taught therein. Same faculty had been continuing to teach the other students as on the date of admission. He denies that there was no lab facilities in the Institute. Best facilities were being provided to all the students. Considerable number of students have attended the Institute even in that session. Maintenance of the teaching staff and faculty is the prerogative of the Institute. Reply of the notice sent by the complainant was given by him through his counsel. Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Birth Certificate of Sh. Vishal Sharma (Ex. C-2), photocopy of fee receipt dated 16.4.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of fee receipt dated 8.8.07 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-5), his another affidavit (Ex. C-6), affidavit of Sh. Vishal Sharma (Ex. C-7), photocopy of prospectus (Ex. C-8) and photocopy of fee receipt dated 7.6.07 (Ex. C-9).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party affidavit of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, its Sole Proprietor (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Form No. 312 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of detail of marks (Ex. R-3), photocopies of certificates of Awdesh Kumar (Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-5), photocopies of certificates of Amolak Singh (Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7), photocopies of certificates of Harbhajan Singh (Ex. R-8 to Ex. R-10), photocopies of cuttings of news papers (Ex. R-11 & Ex. R-12), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. R-13), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex . R-14) and photocopy of A.D. (Ex. R-15) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 6. Some facts are not in dispute in this case. They are that Mr. Vishal Sharma, son of the complainant had got admission in the foundation course of IIT-JEE. A sum of Rs. 50,562/- has been deposited by him in three installments i.e. on 16.4.07, 7.6.07 and 8.8.07. Copies of the receipts are Ex. C-3, Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-9.<br /> 7. Principal grievances of the complainant are that there is no qualified and competent staff in the Institute of the opposite parties. Entire staff is out of Punjab. There are no proper teaching arrangements in the Institute. For a couple of days, staff does not attend the classes. There are no lab facilities in the Institute. There are no proper ventilation in the class rooms. To support it, he has placed on record his own affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-6 and the affidavit of Sh. Vishal Sharma as Ex. C-7. Burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the complainant. He is required to establish it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. For this, we are fortified by the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga V/s M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Another 2000(1) CLT 33.<br /> 8. Allegation of the complainant that there is no qualified or competent staff in the Institute is vague. He has not disclosed the names of the teaching staff and their qualifications. Neither in the affidavits of the complainant and his son nor in the complaint, it has been made clear as to what should be educational qualification and experience of the teaching staff in the Institute of the opposite party. No member of the staff has been named who is possessing less qualification and experience. Hence, this plea of the complainant has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. Ex. R-2 is the copy of the Form No. 312 submitted by the son of the complainant for seeking admission in the Institute of the opposite party. Its Clause No. '9' gives no right to a student to question teaching faculty. Institute does not guarantee any particular names of faculty/teaching staff and the same could be changed by the Institute from time to time. There is no solid evidence of the complainant to prove except his affidavits and the affidavit of his son that teaching faculty is not qualified. To the contrary, opposite party has placed on record copies of the certificates Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-10. Affidavits Ex. C-1, Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7 stand amply rebutted with the affidavit of the opposite party and the copies of the certificates of some persons out of the teaching staff. Ex. R-4 is the copy of the certificate of Sh.Avdhesh Kumar issued by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur according to which he is Doctor of Philosophy in Chemistry. As per Ex. R-5 Sh. Avdhesh Kumar has obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Science in first division from H.N. Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar (Garhwal). He was examined for the first two years in Botany, Zoology, Chemistry and in the third year in Zoology and Chemistry. Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7 are the copies of the certificates of Sh. Amolak Singh. He is holding the Degree of Master of Philosophy (Physics). He is also possessing Degree of Master of Science (Physics). Ex. R-8 to Ex. R-10 are the copies of the certificates of the opposite party. He is Master of Science in the subject of Mathematics. He has also obtained the degree of Master of Philosophy in the subject of Mathematics. He is also holding the Degree of Master of Education. In these circumstances, allegation of the complainant has remained unsubstantiated.<br /> 9. One of the submission in the written arguments submitted by the complainant is that there were more than 100 students attending the class at one time. None out of them, has knocked the door of this Forum with the allegations levelled by the complainant and his son in their affidavits as well as in the complaint. Complainant has failed to specify the facilities not provided to his son. Had there been no proper teaching arrangements, lab facilities and ventilation, those students after making payment of fee etc., to the opposite party, would not have sit folded handed. Fee is paid in such like Institutions for seeking coaching. In case the staff does not attend the classes for couple of days, students cannot remain mum. They must raise hue and cry. Evidence to this effect is lacking. This further gives a big jolt to the story propounded by the complainant.<br /> 10. Complaint sought admission in the Institute of the opposite party voluntarily. Copy of the prospectus is Ex. C-8. Admission Form for admission of the son of the complainant was submitted in the Institute of the opposite party and copy of the same is Ex. C-2. On the back of the admission Form itself rules and regulations of the Institute have been recorded. According to them, fee payable by a student is not refundable. In our view complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct. Knowing fully well that fee is not refundable, he has preferred this complaint. It is not a case where complainant deposited the entire amount of Rs. 50,562/- in Lump-sum. This amount has been deposited by him in three installments i.e. on 16.4.07, 7.6.07 and 8.8.07. Had the averments given in the complaint been true, complainant and his son would not have deposited second and third installments with the opposite party. Fact that amount of three installments has been paid with intervals gives the inference that they were satisfied about the teaching arrangements, teaching faculty and other amenities and facilities which are being provided in the Institute. Ex. R-11 & Ex. R-12 are the copies of the News Paper clippings according to which one of the students who got coaching from this Institute bagged 3rd rank in the National Scientific Talent Search Competition held at Hyderabad in January, 2008. It is not a case where opposite party has refused to impart coaching to the son of the complainant nor it is his case. It means that he has voluntarily started remaining absent from the classes. Complainant served legal notice upon the opposite party, copy of which is Ex. C-5. Reply of this notice was given by the opposite party, copy of which is Ex. C-13 asserting his stance. He has gone to the extent of welcoming the son of the complainant to the Institute to continue the classes during the session. Complainant cannot take the benefit of the wrong of his son. On the one hand, he is not attending the classes and on the other complainant is seeking refund of the fee by way of imputing allegations which have no substance.<br /> 11. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to prove deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering services to the son of the complainant. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 31-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member