Delhi

East Delhi

CC/370/2012

SANTOSH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYMBIOSIS CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

             CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.-    370/2012

                                                                                                   Date of Institution             18/05/2012

                                                                                                   Order reserved on              24/10/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                      25/10/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr. Santosh Singh, adult 

R/o –28A/1, Chander Nagar,   

Mandawali, Delhi 110092…….…………………………...…………….Complainant

                                                     

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning

Symbiosis Bhawan  

1065-B, Gokhale Cross Road

Model Colony, Pune 411016

 

2-Aptech Computer Education

D-239, 2^nd Floor, Vivek Vihar, Delhi……………………………………Opponents

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                   Dr P N Tiwari                Member                   

                     

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief -

This complaint case pertains to Distance Learning program of OP as imparting education /coaching through distance learning (correspondence method) where complainant paid his fee in part, but due to non compliance of admission norms in time, admission was cancelled. So through this complaint, refund of his fee was demanded.  

 

Facts of the case—                                                                                              

The complainant, Santosh Singh, wanted to pursue business diploma as PGDBA from OP/ Symbiosis Centre who was offering such diplomas of two years duration through correspondence method in year 2008, so, he applied and got his registration no. as 200854315 and completed required formalities. He deposited part of his (two year) fee a sum of Rs 10,000/- through DD on dated 06/02/2008(Ex CW1/1). Thus complainant deposited total Rs 26,000/- with OP as DD of 15,000/- and 1000/-(Ex CW1/2 and 2A), but only got identity card (Ex CW1/3) exhibiting his Enrollment date as July 2008 for PGDBA course. This card was valid till July 2012. When he did not get any information about his course or study material from OP, so he sent legal notice on 02/06/2010 for refund of fee. Complainant filed this compliant when he did not get any reply of his legal notice, so claimed refund of his fee a sum of Rs 26,000/- with compensation of Rs 2 Lakh for mental agony and Rs 11,000/- as litigation fee.   

 

OP /Symbiosis Centre submitted written statement and denied all the allegation of deficiency as wrong and incorrect. It was stated there was neither any deficiency in their services nor any unfair trade practice. It was denied that this Forum had territorial jurisdiction as no branch office or learning centre was situated in Delhi or in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence no cause of action ever arisen as per the Section 11 of The Act and all the disputes were limited to the Pune Jurisdiction only.  

It was stated that detailed steps were mentioned in their admission broacher and was available on their website. It was admitted that complainant had sent fee a sum of RS 10,000/- through DD no. 042403/45118 dated 26/09/2008 and was received on 25/10/2008 at OP office, but complainant had not mentioned detail about himself at the back of DD which was mandatory to be mentioned by the students whosoever take admission. As no details were mentioned on the back of the DD, so DD was deposited in their silent account and complainant was asked to furnish the details about the fee, but till 4^th June 2009, no response was available. On 12^th Feb., 2010, complainant sent a bank encashment letter and institution activated his password and login ID. It was stated that the validity of the said diploma was up to July 2012, but complainant did not peruse for his program, so his admission was cancelled.     

Complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that he paid entire fee on time and his two years study tenure was wasted.

OP submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Namdev Kumhar, AR of OP, and affirmed on oath that all the acts and evidences submitted as evidences were true and as per terms and condition of the institution. It was stated that their admission voucher contains all information in detail and only after acceptance of all conditions, admission was given. All the terms and conditions were available on their official website. Hence all the allegations were denied as wrong. It was admitted in their affidavit that complainant had paid first installment fee Rs 16,000/- (Rs 1000/- and Rs 15,000/-) and second fee had to be deposited by 27^th Sept. 2008, but due to non furnishing of second installment fee in time, his admission was cancelled.  

It was also stated that complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs 3000/- as late fee and his program would be activated, but he failed to do so. Thus there was no deficiency in their services extended to the complainant.  

OP had also submitted citation as Vijay Kumar vs IGNOU and others in RP 3081/2010, NCDRC, where dismissal of complaint by the Forum was upheld as there was incomplete furnishing of informations in the application by the applicant/complainant.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of file, order was reserved.  

After going through the facts and evidence on record, it was seen that complainant had not furnished the mandatory informations at the back of the DD of Rs 10,000/- on this issue, his login and password was freezed though there was no evidence that incomplete information was submitted. As first year fee was received timely by the OP, but there was delay due to some error in writing details at the back of the DD by complainant. Also there was no evidence of reminder ever was sent by the OP through speed post for requiring second installment of Rs 10,000/- or freezing of his login ID and password by which he could not access timely on OP’s website.  

As far as implication of citation submitted by OP does not rely as in this case, informations were submitted completely.  

We have also seen that complainant had also not sent any correspondence to OP when he had deposited a sum of Rs 16,000/ in time for first year installment and was unable to access his password and login ID. He kept quiet for over two years and this itself showed the deficiency on the part of complainant too.  

It is clear that complainant had paid a sum of Rs 26,000/- to OP in installments and could not give exams. As his diploma was of correspondence in nature, this means that there was no obvious loss of time for complainant except money and similarly OP had also no issue of ‘left out vacant’ seat by which loss would have occurred.

Thus, we are of the opinion that complaint has some merit and so pass the following order as under—

1. OP shall refund the total amount after deducting administrative and service charges, if applicable as per the rules of the institution, within 45 days from the receiving of this order.  
2. There shall be no other order to cost.

 

The order copy be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.  

 

(Dr) P N  Tiwari – Member                                                                           Sukhdev Singh - President