Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

cc/14/1602

R. Vaidyanathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Sai Driving School - Opp.Party(s)

R. Dhananjaya

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 11.09.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 23.01.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1602/2014

DATED THIS THE 23^rd JANUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

R.Vaidyanathan

S/o Late B.Ramamurthy,

Aged about 50 years,

R/at no.007 (outhouse)

4^th main road,

Chamarajapet,

Bengaluru-18.

 

By Adv.Sri.Dhananjaya.R     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

Sri Sai Driving School,

No.21/1, Aradhya complex,

Vani Vilas road,

Shankarapuram,

Bengaluru-04.

 

By Adv.Sri.M.K.KempeGowda

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to refund the entire amount paid to him plus interest along with an amount of Rs.96,000/- as compensation with cost and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he enrolled himself with the Op for the purpose of getting driving licence for light motor vehicle. The enrolment number with Op on 06.09.13, with bill no.862 and paid Rs.1,000/- and paid balance Rs.2,200/- on various dates.  The Complainant further submitted that the learners licence issued by RTO authorities on 12.09.13.  Op has informed the Complainant that there will be 20 days of half an hour class but they have provided only 15 half an hour class. The Complainant further submitted that after making several representations and telephone calls to Op, it had finally agreed and asked the Complainant to appear before the RTO Koramangala on 15.02.14 and on that day the Complainant has paid Rs.200/- towards testing fees to the Principal but the test could not take place on that day and they cited reason that the RTO officials is absent because of inefficiency of the Principal of the school/Op more than 15 to 20 people has to return home without driving license test.  The Op has not even bother to inform the Complainant next day of the test and in the meanwhile, learners license has expired on 12.03.14. The receipt of the amount paid for the test is with the Op. The Complainant further submitted that the Op has failed to redress the grievance of the Complainant, being aggrieved by the negligent act and deficiency of services on the part of Op, filed this complaint. Hence prays for allow the complaint.  

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear before this forum and filed version denying the contents of the complaint except admitting the enrolment of the Complainant for the purpose of getting driving licence. The contention of the Op that it is a driving school and the Complainant enrolled with the Op for the purpose of getting driving license of light motors vehicle and to get driving training also.  The Op further submitted that it had provided 20 half an hour driving classes to the Complainant and provided the learners license also. The Complainant has paid only an amount of Rs.3,200/-. On 15.02.14 the Complainant and Op have appeared before the RTO, Koramangala for D.L. test of the Complainant, but unfortunately the RTO office on leave on that day. The Op has no knowledge of leave of RTO officer, the Op has requested the Complainant to appear on next day before the RTO officer for DL test. But the Complainant did not appear on next day. The Op further submitted that, it made several telephone call to the Complainant to appear before RTO but the Complainant not properly responded and not appeared before the RTO officer. The Op further submitted that it is ready to provide renewal of the learner license and to provide driving license from the RTO officer to the Complainant, if the Complainant co-operate with Op. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-A1 to A3. The Principal of Op filed affidavit evidence and none of the documents got marked. Both filed written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record.  

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the facts of the complaint and also the version filed by the Op. The grievance of the Complainant is that, though he enrolled himself with the Op for the purpose of getting driving licence for light motor vehicle by paying requisite amount as stated in para 4 of the complaint, but it is the Op who found to be dereliction in its duty in not providing the RTO test on 15.02.14. In this context, the several correspondences made with Op went in vain. Hence he prayed for the refund of the entire amount paid by him plus interest along with an amount of Rs.96,000/- as compensation.  But the say of the Op is that on 15.02.14, due to the leave of concerned RTO officer, driving license test could not made. In this context, he informed to the Complainant to come on the next day for the said test. As per the say of the Op, the Complainant did not respond. Even now, it is ready to provide renewal of learners license and to provide driving license from the RTO officer to the Complainant, if the Complainant co-operate with it. If this fact is taken in to consideration, we do not find any laxity/deficiency of service on the part of Op. If the Op is directed to provide renewal of learners license and to provide driving license from the concerned RTO officer to the Complainant, we hope the ends of justice would met sufficiently. This is only a suggestion but not the direction. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.

 

2.  Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant, to approach the Op to get renewal of the learner’s license and also to get driving license from the concerned RTO officer, in this context, Op has to heed the request of the Complainant.

 

          3. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 23^rd January 2018).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.R.Vaidyanathan, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Original admission card
Ex-A2	Original advance receipt dtd.06.09.13
Ex-A3	Learning licence issued on 12.09.13

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.A.Ramesh, who being the Principal of Op was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT