STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Vikas Bali, Rock N Roll Dance, Modelling Institute and Event Management, SCO 265, First Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Suranshi Thukral d/o Sh.Rajansh Thukral s/o Sh.G.L.Thukral, r/o House No. 252/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. 

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.R.K.Kakar, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“In view of the forgoing, we are of the opinion, that the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs, jointly & severally, are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2000/- to the complainant and are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2500/- towards mental & physical harassment caused to the complainant, apart from litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

This order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.5.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-“.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was desirous of learning Hip-Hop dance, for Health Management, and therefore, she, alongwith her father, approached Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant). Opposite Party No.1, quoted a fees of Rs.2500/-, for learning the aforesaid dance. He also promised to the complainant, that training would be imparted only through a lady trainer. On the said assurance, the  complainant deposited Rs.2500/-  on 17.1.2011,  vide Annexure-1,  towards a package. The complainant thereafter, started going to the Dance Institute of the Opposite Parties. She found that Lady Trainer, had not been arranged by the Opposite Parties. The complainant, also felt that the environment was not good and the Opposite Parties were also making comments on girls, under dance training. On account of this reason, the complainant stopped going to the dance Institute of the Opposite Parties. It was stated that, as the Opposite Parties, failed to appoint any lady trainer, so the father of the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, to refund the fees, but he refused to do so. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were, thus, deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               In reply, Opposite Party No.1, pleaded that the present complaint had been filed, in connivance with Opposite Party No. 3, who was expelled from service, by him (Opposite Party No.1), in the month of February 2011. It was stated that the complainant, approached Opposite Party No.1, for the first time, in the Month of June 2010 and expressed her desire to join the dance classes and asked for a discount. The Opposite Party No.1, gave discount of Rs.500/-. It was further stated that the complainant made payment of Rs.2,000/- and joined the dance classes, for a period of one month. It was denied that the complainant was promised, that the dance training would be imparted by a lady trainer. It was further stated that the complainant had already completed her one month course, in dance in June-July 2010, and, as such, the question of refund of fees, did not at all arise. It was further stated that the complainant, visited the Institute of Opposite Party No.1, again in the month of December 2010, but never made any payment. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor he indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               Opposite Parties no.2 and 3, did not appear despite service and, accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte.

5.               The authorized representative of the complainant and the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the authorized representative of the complainant and the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

8.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant approached the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, for learning Hip-Hop dance, for Health Management. He further submitted that, she deposited Rs.2,000/, as fees, for the period of one month. He further submitted that it was never assured to the complainant, that a lady trainer, will be provided for the said dance classes. He further submitted that the complainant, completed her one month course, in Hip-Hop dance for Health Management, and, as such, the appellant was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in accepting the complaint,

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is not disputed  that the complainant, approached Opposite Party No.1, for learning Hip-Hop dance for Health Management. It is evident from Annexure R-1, pamphlet that the fees fixed for crash course of one month for learning the said dance was Rs.2,000/-.  It is evident from Annexure R-3, copy of the receipt, that the complainant, deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as fees. In the complaint, the complainant only stated that she started going to the Institute of Opposite Party No.1, but since the lady trainer, as assured, had not been provided, she discontinued going there. She never admitted, that that she actually joined the dance classes, and participated in the same. She also did not state at all, in her complaint, or in her affidavit, by way of evidence, that she attended the course for the period of one month and completed the same. In case, the complainant had attended the crash course, for the period of one month, for the aforesaid dance, then some attendance register or attendance sheet, could be produced by Opposite Party No.1, to prove this factum.  The other students must also have joined the dance classes and participated in the same. In case, the complainant was actually attending and participating in the dance course, in the month of June 2010, then the affidavits of other students could also be produced, by way of evidence, by Opposite Party No.1, to prove this factum. The evidence produced by the complainant, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, therefore, remained unrebutted through any reliable evidence. The District Forum, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant had not attended the course, though deposited the fees, for the reason, that a lady trainer had not been provided. The District Forum, was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that since  the complainant did not attend the dance classes, for the aforesaid reasons, it was obligatory on the part of Opposite Party No.1, to refund the fees, but by not doing so, he(Opposite Party No.1) was deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum, was thus, right, in holding that the complainant was entitled to the refund of the amount of fees.

11.            The District Forum, took cognizance of the fact, that on account of non-attendance of the dance course, by the complainant, due to non-provision of female dance trainer and non-refund of the amount of fees, deposited by her, she underwent a tremendous physical harassment and mental agony. The District Forum, was, thus, right in awarding compensation,  for such physical harassment and mental agony, occasioned to the complainant, on account of the act and conduct of Opposite Parties. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.

12.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

13.            The order passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 10, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg