PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
The Complainant is a student and he is permanent resident of Belgaum, State of Karnataka. The Opposite Party is a Private Ltd. Company and is running Aviation Academy, providing pilot training to the aspiring students by collecting fees on hourly basis. The Opposite Party had provided information of the courses offered by them by publishing brochure. Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced copy of the brochure at Exh.‘D’.
2) The Complainant aspiring to become pilot, believing the representation of the Opposite Party applied for admission as a trainee with the Opposite Party. The Complainant paid necessary fees of Rs.21,500/- on 20/08/08 and sought admission with the Opposite Party. The Complainant satisfied all requirements before seeking admission. Duration of course as specified in the brochure was 10/12 months within which the Complainant was supposed to be trained for flying on single engine aircraft for 200 hours and subsequently he was to undergo training on multi engine aircraft rating for three weeks at his house. The Complainant subsequently paid a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- by D.D. to the Opposite Party till 14/02/08. In all, the Complainant has paid Rs.2,51,000/- to the Opposite Party towards fees for obtaining pilot training. Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced details regarding payment of fee at Exh.‘C’ and bill issued by Opposite Party at Exh.‘D’.
3) According to the Complainant, from his native place he came to Baramati and joined training. After few days he noticed that Opposite Party was not having necessary infrastructure as represented and the Complainant was not getting proper opportunity to fly aircraft for the prescribed period. This was due to the failure on the part of Opposite Party to abide by the flying schedule as promised and hence, Complainant could not complete training within prescribed period. The Complainant approached concerned officer of the Opposite Party to find out the reasons for the deficiency, but he could not get satisfactory answers.
4) It is alleged by the Complainant that there were more logging hours than flying and he was wasting his time sitting idle for hours together at the academy. The infrastructure was inadequate. Staffs of the Opposite Party were not giving proper attention. Junior students were given more preference than seniors. In between the institute was closed for failure the Opposite Party to appoint Chief Flying Instructor. The Opposite Party was rocked by a scandal after its CEO filed FIR against Chief Flying Instructor for financial irregularities including issuing of fraudulent flight certificates. The Complainants has annexed newspaper cutting alongwith complaint at Exh.‘F’. In such circumstances, the Complainant discontinued the training due to the deficiency of service of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has lost valuable 18 months at the threshold of his career and he was mentally disturbed for losing valuable time and money. The Complainant went back to Belgaum and narrated his harrowing experiences to his parents. His father on 05/06/08 wrote a letter to the Opposite Party and requested to refund balance amount as the Complainant has completed only 15 hours 14 minutes of flying. After 3 month, the Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.26/09/08 expressed their inability to refund their balance fees, contending that Complainant can utilize fees towards his flying training. The Complainant on 01/10/08 sent legal notice to the Opposite Party but Opposite Party has not given any reply to the said notice. According to the Complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and therefore, he could not complete his training. The Opposite Party refused to refund balance amount of fees therefore, he was constrained to file this complaint.
5) The Complainant has prayed to declare that the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.2,51,500/- to the Complainant with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of payment till realization of entire amount. The Complainant has claimed Rs.10 Lacs as compensation for deficiency in service of Opposite Party for mental agony and harassment. He has also prayed for Rs.25,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses from the Opposite Party.
6) Present complaint is filed by through his father – Constitute Power of Attorney- Mr. Raghavendra Naryan Katti. The Complainant has produced certificate copy of General Power of Attorney and copies of other documents at Exh.‘B’ to ‘I’.
7) Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending that complaint is vexatious and non-tenable and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost.
8) It is admitted by the Opposite Party that they are running Academy for training of personnel to equip them for various posts in the Aviation world. Their Academy was established in the year 1995 and it is an ISO 9001:2000 certified company. Amongst its other activities the Opposite Party also conduct training for pilots which equips such trainees to obtain various licences like Private Pilots Licence (PPL), which are issued by Director General of Civil Aviation upon successful completion of the training at the Academy. Opposite Party Academy hired staff and professional both to manage Academy as well as impart instructions and training to the students. The strength of staff and instructors is necessarily based upon number of trainees/ students enrolled with the Academy. The Academy also makes available the aircraft for dual/sole flying by the trainees and incurs a considerable expense for having the same available to impart training to those who are enrolled for such training. The Academy has published its brochure. In the said brochure it is made abundantly clear that “the fees charged by the Opposite Party is non refundable and if any trainee/students were to discontinue the training for any reason whatsoever there would be no refund of fees already paid by such trainee/student. A candidate who is unable to complete the training or is otherwise to acquire license is not entitled to refund of any fee from the Opposite Party Academy.” In the brochure itself Opposite Parties have clearly stated about the refund policy stating that “in case of pre-mature course by the student, fees will not be refunded under any circumstances”.
9) It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has paid a fee of Rs.21,500/- on/or about 20/08/06. The Complainant has also paid further sum of Rs.2,30,000/- till 14/02/08. It is alleged that the Complainant was not regular in making of fees as per schedule. Facility of part payment was granted to the Complainant at his request as special case. Sum of Rs.2,51,500/- represents less than 25 % of the cost of training. 0) It is submitted that the Complainant had don actual flying for 15 hours and 14 minutes before he unilaterally and voluntarily chose to abundant the training. The Complainant has not even paid the full fees in spite of actual flying under taken by him and was seeking time to pay balance fees and expressed financial constraint’s and difficulties.
11) Opposite Parties have denied allegations that there was no proper infrastructure and there was no sufficient staff at their Academy. It is submitted that during the period 2006 to 2008 more than 182 students have passed out from Opposite Party Academy. It is submitted that Academy is subject to periodical inspection by DGCA. They have denied allegation that Complainant made grievance to the concerned officer of the Opposite Party. They have denied allegations that there was no proper schedule or time-table for flying and also denied other allegations made in the complaint.
12) It is admitted by the Opposite Party that FIR was lodged against Flying Instructor by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Opposite Party. Pending the investigation by DGCA, training of the Academy was shut down for short period. They have denied the allegation that banks or society refused to sanction loan to the student desires of undertaking training at Opposite Party’s Academy. According to the Opposite Party there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
13) Opposite Party has filed affidavit of one Mr.Marc Carvalho in support of the written statement. The Complainant has filed rejoinder and thereby denied allegations made in the written statement. The Complainant has filed written argument. Opposite Party has also filed written argument. Heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Mr.Maish Dixit of the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Mr.Mohan Bir Singh for the Opposite Party and the matter closed for judgement.
14) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover Rs.2,51,500/- with interest and compensation and cost of this proceeding from the Opposite Party ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- Following facts are admitted fact that in the month of August, 2008 the Complainant had taken admission in the Aviation Academy of Opposite Party, as he was aspiring to become pilot. On 20/08/08 he paid Rs.21,500/- towards fees to the Opposite Party. Thereafter from time to time till 14/02/08 he paid in all Rs.2,51,000 to the Opposite Party towards fees. As per brochure published by the Opposite Party the course was approximately for the period of 15 months. The Complainant had done actual flying for 15 hours and 40 minutes.
According to the Complainant there was inadequate infrastructure and inadequate staff in the Opposite Party’s Academy. No proper attention was paid to the students. There was no proper schedule for flying and his most of time was wastage seating idle. Opposite Party’s institute was closed for some period for failure to appoint Chief Flying Instructor. There was a scandal in the Academy. CEO of Opposite Party had filed FIR against Chief Flying Instructor for financial irregularities and issuance of fraudulent flight certificates. In such circumstances the Complainant took decision to discontinue the training and went back to his native place. Subsequently his father wrote letter to the Opposite Party and requested to refund the balance amount of fees but Opposite Party refused to pay balance of fees.
On the contrary it is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that allegations made in the complaint are totally false. Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party denied allegations that inadequate infrastructure and staff. It is submitted that Opposite Party’s Academy is subjected to periodical inspection by DGCA. It is reputed institution having ISO 9001:2000 certificate. It is submitted that the Complainant because of financial difficulties voluntarily discontinued course and thereafter he has made false allegations in his complaint. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has produced true copy of letter dtd.10/04/08 submitted by the Complainant to the CEO the Academy for refund of fees due to the rejection of this loan application. Original letter dtd.10/04/08 made by the Complainant was brought before this Forum and it was shown to the learned Advocate of the Complainant. By referring to the contents of letter, it is submitted that the Complainant has specifically stated that he is unable to pursue his further flying training at Opposite Party’s school due to financial difficulties as the bank he had applied for loan had rejected his loan application. Ld.Advocate of the Opposite Party has submitted that false allegations are made by the Complainant that Opposite Party’s Institution was closed for some time, on the ground of failure to arrange Chief Flying Instructor. It is submitted that for the purpose of inspection by the DGCA, Institution was closed for short period. The Complainant has not adduced evidence to support his allegations. It is further submitted that FIR lodged against the Chief Flying Instructor by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Opposite Party was on the ground of some misdemeanor but Complainant had no concerned with the said case. It is vehemently submitted that Complainant on his own account due to his financial difficulties has discontinued training course of Opposite Party.
From the evidence on record, it is clear that on 10/04/08 the Complainant submitted in his application to the CEO of Opposite Party for refund of fees stating therein that he is unable to pursue of his flying training due to the financial constraints and difficulties as the banks have rejected his application for loan. It appears that subsequently the Complainant has made allegations against the Opposite Party as Opposite Party has refused to refund the fees. It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that in the brochure published by the Opposite Party it is specifically stated about their refund policy. The Complainant has produced xerox copy of the brochure. In the brochure under the heading Refund Policy, it is stated that in the case of premature termination of the course by the student, fees will not be refunded under any circumstances. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has further submitted that at the time of taking admission in Opposite Party’s Institute, the Complainant Pranesh Katti has given indemnity bond. Opposite Party has produced photo copy of Indemnity bond in which Complainant has stated that “I hereby agree that in the case of premature termination by me, I will not demand the refund of fees under any circumstances”. Considering aforesaid facts and indemnity bond given by the Complainant, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the negative.
Point No.2 :- The Complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. In view of terms and conditions of brochure and specially indemnity bond furnished by the Complainant, we hold that Complainant is not entitled to recover Rs.51,500/- or any other amount or compensation from the Opposite Party. Hence, we answer point no.2 answer in the negative.
For the reasons discussed above, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.98/2009 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
