Haryana

Kurukshetra

183/2018

Satvik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spearhead Education - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.183 of 2018.

Date of instt.:28.08.2018.

                                                                       Date of Decision:03.12.2018.

Satvik Sharma (minor) S/o Subhash Sharma, R/o H.No.379/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra (through his father).

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

Spearhead Education Power by Lakshya Institute Kurukshetra (Known as Lakshya Institute Kurukshetra), Ist Floor, above Singla Honda, near New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra.

 

..………OP.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                    Ms. Neelam, Member.

                    Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present :        Complainant in person.

                    OP already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satvik against Spearhead Education, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant enrolled his son Satvik Sharma in Op Institute for 10+2 Non Medical Coaching on 06.04.2018 by depositing Rs.2500/-.  It is alleged that the Op Institute told that they have faculty from IITs, so, the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- on 13.04.2018 vide receipt No.61 amounting to Rs.16,000/- and vide receipt No.62 amounting to Rs.14,000/- for coaching and online test series.  It is further alleged that the son of complainant started classes in Op Institute, then he came to know that there is no faculty from IITs and they appointed faculty from nearby places.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op regarding refund of deposited amount of Rs.32,500/- but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to refund the deposited amount and further to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the Op did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 29.10.2018.   

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-VII and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             The complainant in person contended that he enrolled his son namely Satvik Sharma in Op Institute for 10+2 Non Medical Coaching on 06.04.2018 and deposited all the fee as demanded by the Op, copy of receipts are Annexure-1 to Annexure-3.  The next contention of complainant is that the Op did not give proper coaching and after that he approached the Op Institute to return all the amount deposited by him, then the Op has gave assurance for proper coaching and also made promise to him that they will provide online test series within some days.  In the month of July, they provided some code number for online test but the complainant argued that it was shocking to them that the providing coach was for 8^th standard and not for 10+2 non-medical coaching.  Again, the complainant contended that he repeatedly requested the Op to provide 10+2 Non Medical Coaching code but they did not provide any code to them till today.  At the time of arguments, one document Mark-A was submitted to this Forum and from perusal of said document, it is mentioned by the Op that the online code was available in the Kurukshetra Branch.  So, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Op has wasted the precious time of son of complainant namely Satvik which impacted the study of son of complainant, so, there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Op.              

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to refund the amount of Rs.32,500/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.15,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:03.12.2018.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.