Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/17

Uddayan Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ranker League Education Services - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                17 of 2018

Date of Institution :     8.02.2018

Date of Decision :       9.04.2019

 

1. Uddayan Goyal aged about 19 years s/o Vishal Chander Goyal, son of Ved Parkash Goyal.
2. Vishal Chander Goyal, son of Ved Parkash Goyal.

Residents of Lajpat Nagar, Gali No. 2, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                                                        .....Complainants

Versus

1. Ranker League Education Services, Plot No.9, Opp.Red Cross Bhawan, Near Sarvodya Hospital, Bank Colony, Hissar-125001, through its Director.

Regd Address : House No.172, Govt Colony, Hissar.

                      .........OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Ms. Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP,

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OP to refund the fees and hostel charges and

cc no.17 of 2018

for further directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by complainants besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that Uddayan Goyal/complainant no. 1 took admission in the institute of OP for session 2017-2018 and complainant no.2, father of Uddayan Goyal deposited Rs.72,455/-with OP through NEFT on 10.07.2017 and also deposited Rs.26,000/-for PG. It is submitted that after  admission, opposite party imposed some conditions upon complainants which were not disclosed by them earlier. As per OP, only  parents were to take and leave the students at their own, which is not permissible for them. moreover, hostel qualities were also not upto standard and there were also many reasons, due to which complainants were not satisfied with them and therefore, vide application dated 16.08.2017, complainants asked OP that complainant no.1 does not want to continue in their institution and requested them to refund the fees and hostel charges deposited by them with opposite party. Complainant did not went to institute after 16.08.2017 and thereafter, complainants made several requests to OP to refund their fees, but all in vain. All this act of OP has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainants, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainants have prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation for inconvenience, harassment, mental agony and monetary loss besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

 

 

 

cc no.17 of 2018

3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.02.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainants is false, frivolous and incorrect as no cause of action arises against answering OP and complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is averred that complainants are not their consumers and there is no relationship between complainant and answering OP as per Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, none of the transaction in respect of agreement in question has taken place at Faridkot and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is further averred that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and he has not reached this Forum with clean hands and it is a misuse of process of law. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they never imposed any unwanted conditions which were not acceptable to parents. They never imposed any new conditions after admission that parents must come to take their wards and only parents can leave the students at institute, rather it was the prime condition of the Memorandum of Agreement alongwith prospectus that custody of student would be given to the parents or guardians only with the sole motive of safety of the children. All this is for the safety of students and this was not a new condition which was imposed after admission, rather it was introduced from the very beginning at the time of agreement which was executed between the parties on 7.07.2017 at Hisar and amount was deposited through NEFT on 10.07.2017. It is also denied that hostel facilities are not up to standard. In fact Op provide best

cc no.17 of 2018

hostel facilities to their students. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.

5                                          Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vimal Kishore Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                           Ld Counsel for complainants argued that complainant no. 1 is the son of complainant no. 2, who took admission in the institute of OP and for this purpose complainant no. 2 deposited Rs.72,455/-with OP on 10.07.2017 alongwith Rs.26,000/-for PG. After  admission, opposite party imposed some unwanted conditions upon complainants which were not disclosed by them earlier, vide which only  parents were to take and leave the students at their own, which is not permissible for them. Even, hostel facilities were also not upto standard and there were also many reasons, due to which complainants were not satisfied with them and therefore, vide application dated 16.08.2017, complainants asked OP that complainant no.1 does not want to continue in their institution and requested them to refund the fees and hostel charges deposited by them with opposite party, but Op did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of

cc no.17 of 2018

complainants which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this act of OPs, complainants had to suffer harassment, inconvenience and monetary loss. Prayer for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses is made.

8                                            To controvert the allegations of complainants, ld counsel for OP argued that complainants are not the consumers of OPs as present matter relates to education and it is beyond the purview of this Forum. It is asserted that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and  there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is stressed that all transactions relating to admission of complainant no.1 occurred at Hisar and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is averred that they never imposed any new condition after admission that parents must come to take their wards and only parents can leave the students at institute, rather it was the prime condition of the Memorandum of Agreement alongwith prospectus that custody of student would be given to the parents or guardians only and its sole motive was safety of the children. All this is for the safety of students and this was not a new condition that was imposed after admission, rather it was introduced from the very beginning at the time of agreement which was executed between the parties on 7.07.2017 at Hisar and amount was deposited through NEFT on 10.07.2017 and this it was in existence since long. It is further argued that OP provide best hostel facilities full of quality to their students. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

                

cc no.17 of 2018

9                                                     We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                              Careful perusal of the case file shows that it is the admitted case of parties that complainant no.1 was given admission in the institute of Opposite Party and it is also admitted by OP in their written version that complainant no. 2 deposited Rs.72,455/-with OP through NEFT on 10.07.2017. Hostel charges of  Rs.26,000/-for PG were also admitted by Opposite party. Allegation of complainant that condition imposed by OP for taking and leaving the child only by parents is not acceptable to them as it is not possible for them to  take and leave the child every time at their own. Moreover, as per complainants, hostel facilities given by Opposite parties were also not up to standard and were of inferior quality. It is reiterated that allegations levelled by complainants are false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

11                                  There is no dispute that complainant no.1 was given admission in the institute of OP. It is also admitted by OP that amount of Rs.72,455/-was received by them in lieu of giving admission to complainant no.1. Ex C-3 clearly proves this fact. Ex C-2 further proves that complainants paid Rs.26,000/-on account of PG and Maintenance charges to Opposite party. Ex C-4 is account statement of complainant that proves the pleading of complainants that Rs.72,455/-were debited from the account of complainant on 10.07.2017 through NEFT. Ex C-5 and Ex C-6 are copies of applications written by complainant no. 2 to Director of Opposite Party wherein he has clearly stated that he is unable to follow the rules made by their institution. Ex C-7 is a vital document that depicts

cc no.17 of 2018

the entire grievance of complainant. It is the letter written by complainant no.2 to OP, wherein he has disclosed the reasons which made him to discontinue his studies in the institute of Opposite Party. Mandatory condition imposed by OP that only parents can pick and drop the students is unacceptable to complainants as it is not possible for complainant no. 2 to visit every time to take and leave the complainant no. 1. Hostel facilities provided by them were also not satisfactory and even faculty staff was also not upto the satisfaction of complainants. All this shows that safety conditions made by OP are getting harsh upon parents. Complainant no.1 had to wait for three hours for no reason when he came back after Rakhi holidays. Complainants have produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their pleadings. It is observed that complainants were not satisfied with the hostel facilities provided by opposite party and even rules made by Op were causing hardship to the complainants. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant no. 2 has reiterated his grievance. Fact of deposit of monthly fees of Rs.72,455/- and Rs.26,000/-as hostel charges is also proved in the light of receipts Ex C-2 and Ex 3. Action of OP in not refunding the fees and hostel charges deposited by complainants amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. Moreover, OPs have no right to impose any such condition upon parents which causes difficulty to them.  Action of OP in not refunding the fees deposited by complainant no.2 amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.  

12                                            In the light of above discussion, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is ordered to refund the amount of Rs.72,455/-got deposited by them from complainant no. 2 on account of admission of complainant no. 1 alongwith hostel charges of Rs.26,000/-. As complainant no. 1 took admission in the institute of OP on 10.07.2017 and left the same on

cc no.17 of 2018

16.08.2017, therefore OP are allowed to deduct charges for the period when complainant no.1 remained there in the institute of OP and utilized their facilities and refund the remaining amount to complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 8.02.2018 i.e from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OP is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainants as consolidated compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses incurred  by them. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainants shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 9.04.2018

(Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                                      President