DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 251/2012
Sh. Madan Mohan Priya
S/o Sh. Kunwar Singh
R/o H.No. 223/B, Barwala
Delhi-110039 ….Complainant
Versus
Sankalp I.A.S. Coaching Institute
(Regd. in the name of Jan Kalyan Shiksha Samiti)
Sankalp Bhawan, Plot No. 15,
Sector-IV, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi - 110022
Through its Director
Sh. Santosh Taneja …Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 17.5.2012 Date of Order : 24.02.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. FONIA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant, in succinct, is that after getting himself satisfied by attending the Orientation Camp held by the OP Institute which is a premier institute for IAS preparation/coaching from 16.7.2011 to 19.7.2011, the complainant took admission for General Studies (Hindi medium) in the OP Institute by depositing Rs. 6,000/- on 1.8.2011. According to him, he subsequently deposited Rs. 9,000/- on 8.8.2011, Rs. 10,000/- on 16.8.2011 and Rs. 10,000/- on 20.8.2011 but the OP Institute did not issue any receipt. Sanskrit teacher was not available and the teacher of philosophy (Hindi) was also not as competent as demonstrated in the Orientation Camp or stated by the OP institute. The OP did not provide the Hindi medium classes and rather compelled and forced the students to join the English medium classes. After attending one month’s course the complainant became helpless and, hence, asked the OP to refund him the deposited amount of Rs. 45,000/- but, however, after many requests made by him and the registration of an FIR at PS R.K. Puram regarding the attack on him by another student of the OP Institute, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to refund Rs. 45,000/- towards the deposited fee, Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental tension, pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
In its reply, OP Institute has denied the averments made in the complaint. It is, however, submitted that Sankalp is a programme/project of Jan Kalayan Shiksha Samiti which is a non-profit social organization working since 1986 for guiding and motivating bright students from different stratum of society to adopt civil services/management as their career; that the OP has been making efforts to instill in them a practice of honesty, patriotism and social service and to develop in them abilities to deftly work in various fields; that the activities of the OP are carried out throughout the year at different levels starting from students of Class IX; that the OP conducts various workshops, Personality Development Camps, Social Orientation Camps for civil services aspirants conducting guidance programs at stages of Civil Services preliminary Exam., Mains Exams and Interview. It is stated that the OP is not a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is denied that the complainant had deposited any amount of money on 8.8.2011, 16.8.2011 and 20.8.2011. It is inter-alia stated that the complainant got himself registered for taking guidance in General Studies (Hindi Medium) and contributed an amount of Rs. 6000/- in the same on 1.8.2011 and promised to pay further amount of Rs. 9000/- in the month of September but he did not deposit any amount thereafter showing his difficulties being son of an agriculturist. It is stated that the guidance programme in Sanskrit was organized by the OP in Paharganj, New Delhi area and the complainant had neither opted nor made any payment for guidance programme in Sanskrit in Paharganj though he had attended few programs in Sanskrit at Paharganj without making any payment; that the complainant had attended guidance programme for General Studies and Philosophy in Hindi medium from August to 8th November 2011 when he had a quarrel with Mr. Anil Verma, in respect of which matter, an FIR was got registered at PS R.K. Puram in which the complainant claimed himself to be an advocate and did not make any allegation against the OP or that the complainant had been beaten because of his demand of refund of Rs. 45,000/- or any other amount. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Boruah, AR has been filed on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the complainant in person and the Secretary of the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.
The first contention on behalf of the OP is that in view of the judgments rendered in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors, MANU/SCOP/00053/2012 and Mayank Tiwari Vs FIITJEE Ltd, MANU/CF/0848/2014, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint be dismissed on this ground alone. On the other hand, the complainant has relied on the judgment dated 7.11.2008 passed by the State Commission in FA No. FA-07/874 to contend that the complaint is maintainable as he is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
For the purposes of deciding the complaint it is not necessary for us to go into this question. Therefore, without deciding this question, we proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits.
The complainant has filed a copy of receipt No. S 163 dated 1.8.2011 whereby he had deposited an amount of Rs. 6000/- in cash against the total amount of Rs. 15,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/- was to be paid by him. The OP has denied that the complainant had deposited any amount other than Rs. 6000/- after 1.8.2011. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence we are not inclined to believe that the complainant had, in fact, deposited the amount of Rs. 9,000/- on 8.8.2011, Rs. 10,000/- on 16.8.2011 and Rs. 10,000/- on 20.8.2011. The complainant has filed the copy of the FIR as Annx. 9 wherein he has claimed himself to be an advocate. The complaint had been made against one Amit who had allegedly attacked the complainant violently. No allegation of any kind has been made against the OP Institute. Therefore, the said FIR which, in fact, is a NCR is of no use to the complainant. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaint is devoid of any merit. We dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 24.2.2016
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 251/12
24.02.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
