Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/176/2015

T. Sundarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri ER Sathya Prakash - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.D. Rajagopal

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.11.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  12.01.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 12^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.176/2015

 

 

T.Sundararajan,

S/o. N.Thirumalai,

Old No.47, New No.6,

TP Koil Street, 1^st  Lane,

Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Sri ER Sathya Prakash,

Proprietor/Founder of Spectrum,

Old No.259, New No.11,

Baba Foundation Building, 3^rd Floor,

Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 11.12.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.D.Rajagopal, S.Vijayalakshmi &

                                                                     K.Narasimhan

 

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : S.Vijayakumar,

                                                                

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.34,000/- with 8% simple interest from September 2015 to till the date of payment along with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Respondent institute is training students who aspire for IIT exam. The complainant son S.Srihari  aged 17 years is studying 11^th  standard in DAV Gopalapuram with intent to join IIT exam decided to have coaching in the opposite party institute. The complainant admitted his son after seeing several advertisements of the opposite party. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/-  by way  of cheque dated 13.06.2015 towards coaching fee for the period 15.06.2015 to June 16 approximately  for 400 classes. The opposite party also issued receipt for acknowledging the cheque.

          2. The complainant son approximately attended 40 classes from 15.06.2015 to till September 2015 and thereafter left to attend the coaching classes. The complainant alleged the reasons for not attending the class are that the coaching given by the respondent was not up to standard, not in consonance with the advertisement published by the opposite party and the student felt that class conducted by the opposite party are no use to him and hence there is no purpose in attending the subsequent classes.

          3. The amount of Rs.40,000/- paid by the complainant towards coaching fee for the entire 400 classes and his son attended  only 40 class. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of the balance amount of Rs.34,000/- towards coaching fee for non attending the remaining class. Hence the complainant issued a letter dated 03.09.2015 and legal notice dated 26.09.2015 demanding to refund the coaching fee to him. However, both were returned as left. The opposite party has not given proper coaching and failed to refund the balance coaching fee proves that he had committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.34,000/- with 8% simple interest from September 2015 to till the date of payment along with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party is the Pioneer coaching centre for providing IIT coaching classes from 2013. The complainant admitted his son voluntarily by himself. The total fee   payable for the IIT coaching to the opposite party for academic is Rs.1,48,200/- inclusive  of service taxes. The complainant issued cheque for Rs.40,000/- dated 13.06.2015 and two post dated cheque for Rs.58,800/- and for Rs.49,400/- respectively dated  13.08.2015 and 13.10.2015.

          5. The complainant paid fees only 260 classes and not as stated by him for 400 classes. The complainant is a dull student and unable to cope up with the standard of teaching and skipped the model test conducted by him. The complainant was not in a position to honour the cheque dated 13.08.2015 and 13.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,08,200/- which was given at the time of joining the coaching class and having failed to pay the fees as agreed above, the complainant son failed to attend the remaining classes. The opposite party institute admitted only 40 students for coaching for the academic year and in which except the complainant son and all other students are studied smoothly. The complainant left voluntarily by not attending remaining classes. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is not in dispute that the opposite party institute coaching the students for IIT Examination and the complainant also admitted his son in the year 2015 IIT coaching with the opposite party and at the time of admission and the total fee for the entire academic year is at Rs.1,48,200/- inclusive of service tax  and the complainant gave three cheque i.e a sum of Rs.40,000/- cheque dated 13.06.2015  and another Ex.B2 post dated cheque for a sum of Rs.58,800/- dated 13.08.2015 and the 3^rd cheque  post dated for a sum of Rs.49,400/- dated 13.10.2015 and out of the three cheques, the opposite party had encashed the 1^st cheque for a sum of Rs.40,000/-.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite party is that his son attended only 40 class instead of 400 class for the fees paid by him since, coaching given by the opposite party was not up to the standard and the coaching was not in consonance with the advertisement published by the opposite party and the classes conducted by him are of no use to the complainant son and no way useful to him and hence he stopped himself attending the class after September 2015.

          9. The opposite party would contend that the complainant son is a dull student and he was unable to cope up with the coaching given by them and further he was unable to honour the Ex.B2, Ex.B3 post dated cheques and therefore the complainant stopped his son in attending the class and hence no way he had committed any deficiency in the coaching.

          10. The first deficiency alleged by the complainant is that the coaching given by the opposite party was not up to the standard. The opposite party’s stand is that the complainant’s son is a dull student and he was unable to cope up with the teaching imparted by the opposite party. In such circumstances only an educated person alone can speak the standard of coaching given by the opposite party. The complainant has not attended the classes. Therefore, the complainant is not a competent person to speak about the coaching given by the opposite party. There is no pleading or evidence that the coaching given by the opposite party was not up to the standard.

          11. The opposite party contended that the complainant suppressed the case with regard to payment of fees. According to the opposite party the total fees for the entire academic year was Rs.1,48,200/-. For the said amount, admittedly the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque dated 13.06.2015 and that was only encashed by opposite party. The balance amount of Rs.1,08,200/- was paid by the complainant through Ex.B2, Ex.B3 post dated cheque and that was not honoured by him. Therefore, the complainant has suppressed the fact with regard to payment of fees is accepted.

          12. The complainant next contended that the coaching imparted is not in consonance with advertisement published by the opposite party and classes are of no use to his son. The advertisement made by opposite party has not been filed by the complainant. No evidence adduced by the complainant that the coaching given by the opposite party is not in consonance with the advertisement. Further, there is no acceptable evidence adduced that the classes taken by the opposite party is of no use to the complainant. The deficiency alleged by the complainant is only a bald statement and not supported by any evidence.  Therefore, we decide that none of the deficiency levelled by the complainant against the opposite party has been proved by him and hence, it is held that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency to the complainant.

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th day of January 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.06.2015                   Receipt issued by the Respondent

Ex.A2 dated 03.09.2015                   Letter sent by the petitioner with

                                                    acknowledgement card

 

Ex.A3 dated 26.09.2015                   Legal notice sent by the petitioner with returned

                                                    Cover

 

Ex.A4 dated 03.10.2015                   Legal Notice sent by the petitioner with returned

                                                    Cover

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 28.03.2017                   To whomsoever it may concern

 

Ex.B2 dated 13.08.2015                   Axis Bank Cheque Xerox Copy

 

Ex.B3 dated 13.10.2015                   Axis Bank Cheque Xerox Copy

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT