DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 467/2014
Shri Dalip Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sitaram
House No. 811/17, Lakhpat Colony Part-II,
Meethapur Ext. New Delhi-110044 ….Complainant
Versus
Shriram New Horizons Limited
Regd. Office: UGF, South Wing, NBCC Place Bisma
Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110003.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 09.12.14 Date of Order : 27.04.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 23.06.2014, complainant had been registered with the OP vide registration No. 12138 for providing training for a period of three months for “software course name is/was dot net(.Net)” and for the same the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- on that date. The total fees was Rs.19,675/- including each and every charges excluding books costs and other personal and transportation expenses. The complainant again paid Rs.5,300/- as first installment. He paid Rs.1,700/- on 14.07.2014 as the costs of books though books were not provided to him. In the month of July, 2014 OP had provided only 7 or 8 classes after getting admission according to the terms and conditions. The course would be finished in the month of October, 2014. Quality of the classes was not upto the mark. There was no permanent faculty with the OP. After a long waiting complainant wrote the email dated 19.08.2014 to the OP regarding the classes and completion of the course and further requested to refund the total fees as OP had not started the classes. The OP replied in response to the email that they will arrange the classes very soon with new trainer as the faculty is not available now. OP, however, informed that the fees would not be refundable according to the policy. Complainant again sent the reminders on 22.08.2014 and 23.08.2014 to refund the amount but no response was received from the OP. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.10.2014 to the OP but OP did not reply the same. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to refund the paid amount of Rs.8,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of receipt till its realization to the complainant,
- Award Rs.20,000/- as damages/ compensation to the complainant for providing the deficiency in services and for causing mental agony, pain and suffering caused to the complainant,
- Award a cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
Shri Saurab AR for the OP appeared on 18.02.15 and the copy of the complaint was provided to him on which date the case was adjourned to 10.04.15 for filing written statement.
On 10.04.2015 Shri Abhishek, Legal Company Secretary for the OP appeared and sought time to get the matter settled with the complainant on which date the case was adjourned to 21.05.15 for settlement, if any, or filing written statement. On 21.05.2015, none appeared on behalf of the OP and the case was adjourned to 27.07.2015 for the same purpose. On 27.07.2015, none appeared on behalf of the OP and, hence, the OP was provided exparte.
The complainant has filed his own affidavit in exparte evidence.
We have heard the complainant and gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has filed copy of a fee receipt/ invoice dated 23.06.2014 for an amount of Rs.1000/- which is Ex. CW1/1. OP vide letter dated 23.06.2014 issued copy of a receipt of details of training fees & courseware for an amount of Rs.19,675/-. Copy of the same is Ex. CW1/2. Complainant has also filed copies of two receipts dated 14.07.2014 for an amount of Rs.1700/- and Rs.5300/- issued by the OP. The same are Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/4. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.10.2014 to the OP. Copy of the same is Ex. CW1/5.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant.
Vide receipt (copy Ex. CW1/2) the complainant deposited Rs.5,300/- out of which Rs.583/- were towards service tax @ 12.36 %. Similarly, vide receipt (copy Ex. CW1) complainant deposited Rs.1,000/- which also included Rs.110/- towards service tax @12.36%. Thus, the amounts of Rs.583/- and Rs. 110/- (Rs.693/-) have to be excluded that must have gone to the Government Exchequer. Thus, the complainant deposited Rs.5,607/- towards training fee. According to him, he had deposited Rs.1,700/- towards cost of the books. Hence, this amount did not form part of tuition fee.
In the receipts it is mentioned that “5. Fee once paid is not returnable/ Non Transferable”. This clause does not mean that even if the OP does not render any service to the admission-seeker and does not hold the classes regularly, the OP shall still be entitled to derive benefit of this clause which is mentioned in the receipts which are given to the admission- seekers only after receiving the amount from them. Hence, it is one sided receipt issued by the OP. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the fee of Rs.5,607/- along with interest @ 5% p.a. to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till realization and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental pain etc. and costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 5,607/- from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
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 27.04.18.
