Date of Filing:29/12/2018
Date of Order:11/02/2020
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
PRESENT
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT
SRI. D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.2055/2018
COMPLAINANT | | MISS VANDANA D/o M.S. Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 22 years, R/at No.10, 3rd Cross Road, Dead End, 7th Main, 7th Block, 4th Phase, BSK 3rd Stage, Bhagirathi Nagara, Bangalore 560 085. (Sri V.Mahesh Adv for Complainant) |
| |
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1 | SURA ACADEMY No.228/15, 9th Main, Rajalakshmi Arcade, 2nd Floor, Near ICICI Bank, Opp. To Nagarjuna Chimney, Jayanagara 3rd Block, Bangalore 560 011. (OP- In person) |
| |
ORDER
BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.
1. This Complaint is filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service and for refund of Rs.44,000/- from Op paid as admission fee along with interest at 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing irreparable loss and deficiency in service and unethical trade practice and for causing physical and mental agony and for such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: the complainant is the daughter of one Mr M.S Jagadeesh Kumar who was working as a clerk in advocate office. She joined to OP’s academy in the year 2018-19 by paying Rs.44,000/- by paying cash to get good education. During august 2018, her father was transferred from Bangalore to Dharwad office and she could not continue her education at Bangalore and she had to shift along with her family to Dharwad. She requested OP to refund the same. Initially OP agreed to refund the same. Whereas, changed its version started to negotiate with her and did not pay the same. Complainant’s family is a middle class family and has to earn by doing hard work. Inspite of making repeated request, OP did not heed to the words and she had to issue a legal notice demanding the money. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount received and further it amounts to unethical trade practice and to make illegal profit. Inspite of receiving the legal notice, OP neither paid the amount nor reply to the same. Hence the complaint.
3. Upon the service of notice, OP appeared in person and filed his version denying all the allegations made against it in each and every para of the complaint whereas admitted that the complainant paid Rs.44,000/- towards the fee for CMA inter classes. Complainant joined the classes on knowing that Op is imparting good training to the students in his academy. Except this, complainant, all the students successfully completed the course. The complainant herself has defaulted to continue to attend the course which started in the month of July 2018. Out of the amount paid, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as fee to the institute of Cost Account of India, and the said organization has issued receipt bearing No.232668 and the same cannot be claimed by him. It is further contended that at the time of admission to the academy, complainant and his parents were made known the terms and conditions. Complainant paid Rs.20,000/-on 09.07.2018 and Rs.4,000/- on 01.08.2018 towards tuition and coaching fee for which receipts were issued and it was also made is clear that one fee paid, the same is not refunded. The amount paid to ICAI has been paid by OP on behalf of the complainant. It has helped student to register with ICAI.
4. Further the course period was only for 5 months commencing from 01.08.2018. The reason given by the complainant for discontinuing the course is that her family shifted to Dharwad. Whereas the address mentioned in the legal notice issued on 23.10.2018 and in the complaint filed before the forum on 29.02.2018 and also in the verifying affidavit filed, the complainant has mentioned her residence as Bengaluru only. When she was residing in Bangalore only, she could have attended the course itself which was only for 5 months and could have definitely successfully completed. There is no deficiency on their part and prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate her case, complainant her affidavit evidence. Heard the arguments. The points arise for our consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT 1 & 2 : In the Negative
For the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(1) & (2) :-
7. We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties and the documents filed by them. It is not in dispute that the complainant got admitted with OP for coaching for CMA Inter by paying Rs.24,000/- to OP and Rs.20,000/- paid to the institute of Cost Accounts of India a Statutory body which has issued receipt as per ExP4 wherein Rs.500/- is taken towards intermediate registration charges and Rs.19,500/- as intermediate postal tuition fees remaining amount has been received by OP as per Ex.P2 and P3. The issue of the legal notice the reply are all admitted.
8. The primary contention of the Op is that though the complainant was very much present in Bangalore itself she for her own reasons remained absent and did not attend the course. It is further contended that at the time of issuing of the legal notice, at the time of the filing of the complaint, and the verifying affidavit filed along with, clearly shows that she was very much present and residing in Bangalore and did not shift to Dharwad to accompanying her father. There is no evidence worth believing to show that the father of the complainant shifted from Bangalore to Dharwad and so also the complainant. No residential documents to show that the complainant and her parents residing in Dharwad to justify the claim of the complainant that since her father was transferred to Dharwad from Bengaluru and as they shifted to Dharward, she could not attend the class. In view of this there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP in any respect made out.
9. Further the letter produced by the complainant stating that her father has been transferred to Dharwad on promotion is nothing to do with the complainant since there is no materials placed by the complainant that father shifted the residence to Bangalore to Dharwad and she also shifted her residence to accompanying him. In view of this, no deficiency in service is made out and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and in view of the this, we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the complaints/ version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by her corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
PW-1 | Miss.Vandana.J – Complainant. |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the appointment letter dated 03.08.2018
Ex P2 to P4: Receipts (3 in No.s)
Ex P5: Copy of the legal notice
Ex P6: postal acknowledgements
Ex P7: Copy of the replay dated 24.11.2018.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: -Nil
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
-Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A*
