DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 160/2015
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURENDER KUMAR,
S/o SH. KOSH RAJ,
R/o F-1/206, SECTOR-16,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE,
(JOINT VENTURE OF ASHOK LEYLAND
& GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI),
BURARI, DELHI-110084.
2. COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT,
5/9, UNDER HILL ROAD,
RAJPUR ROAD, DELHI. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.01.2015
Date of decision:15.10.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 03.12.2014, the complainant went to OP-1 for giving auto driver training and for the same OP-1 charged an amount of Rs.113/- and
CC No. 160/2015 Page 1 of 5
gave a receipt no. 42886 dated 03.12.2014 for an amount of Rs.112.36. The complainant further alleged that he sent a notice to OPs on 20.12.2014 about the mistake and charging excess amount from the complainant and the complainant further alleged that further same auto driver training test other institutes are charging Rs.110/- and whereas OP-1 is charging more fee. The complainant further alleged that till 03.12.2014, 42886 auto drivers have taken training and still more than 3 lakhs auto drivers are yet to obtain training and OP-1 is collecting excess fee from the auto drivers. The complainant further alleged that auto drivers need not under go such training repeatedly and whereas OPs are insisting that this training certificate is valid for 30 days only and auto drivers are required to obtain training repeatedly. The complainant further alleged that despite training notice OPs did not reply nor refunded the excess amount. The complainant accordingly alleged that there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs torefund the excess amount charged by OP-1 as well as compensation @ Rs.800/- per day for causingwages loss, mental pain, agony and harassment and has also soughtRs.2,010/- as litigation cost.
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed reply wherein OP-1
CC No. 160/2015 Page 2 of 5
submitted that the case is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and no cause of action has ever arose against OP-1 and the complainant has suppressed the material facts. However, OP-1 in its reply admittedly the issuance of receipt of Rs.113/- against the total value of Rs.112.36 ad the same was done due to non-availability of coins in small denominations. OP-1 however submitted that the amount of fee has been collected as per notification and is not concerned about the fee being charged by other institutes.
4. However, none for OP-2 appeared despite service and was proceeded ex-partevide order dated 28.10.2015.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. The complainant has also placed on record copy of receipt no. 42886 dated 03.12.2014 of Rs.113/- against Rs.112.36 issued by OP-1, copy of complaint dated 20.12.2014 alongwith copies of postal receipts.
6. However, OP-1 did not lead any evidence despite giving opportunity though has filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, OP-1 in the reply has admitted that an
CC No. 160/2015 Page 3 of 5
amount of Rs.113/- was charged against Rs.112.36 from the complainant and has given justification of excess charging of amount due to non-availability of coins of smaller denomination.
8. After considering the case of the parties this Forum is of opinion that justification given by OP-1 for charging excess amount from the complainant does not seem to us a valid reason and OP-1 cannot charge the excess amount on the plea as taken. OP-1 ought to have charged the fee in whole figure after making necessary changes in the notification. Considering the fact that there are a large number of auto drivers who have received training or yet to receive training would be giving excess amount to OP-1 which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It also shows that OP-1 has no genuine defence at all. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- ascompensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1fails to comply the order within 30 days
CC No. 160/2015 Page 4 of 5
from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 15th day of October, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 160/2015 Page 5 of 5
