BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/05/2013

Date of Order : 27/01/2014

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 339/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant contacted the opposite party over telephone and made enquiries about SAP end user training through the description of his needs. The opposite party has given assurance to the complainant that they are offering courses as required by him. Believing the assurance given by the opposite party, the complainant paid Rs. 5,000/- on 22-03-2013 and Rs. 15,000/- on 28-03-2013. Later visiting the institute and upon discussion with the instructor, the complainant came to know that the course being offered does not match the requirements as agreed with the opposite party and hence he sought for the refund of the amount paid. But instead of refunding the amount paid, the opposite party further demanded Rs. 10,000/- more for providing the training. The act of the opposite party to collect fees by making false representation regarding a course, which they are not capable to provide on their own amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Though the complainant made several requests for refund of the money collected from him, they refused to do so. Hence the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party. But the opposite party neither sent a reply nor refunded the amount paid by him. The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 20,000/- paid by him along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realisation together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-

The complainant contacted the opposite party showing his high interest to undergo SAP training for his job requirement. The opposite party informed the complainant that they offer 3 level of training based on the requirement of the complainant and those 3 levels are (1) functional consultant level – SAP training, (2) End user Level – SAP training and (3) Technical Consultant Level – SAP training (Programming). The cost of each level training was Rs. 20,000/- each. Accordingly, class was started. The total duration of the course was 20 hours. The opposite party has provided the complainant fast track practical training with an expert trainer. After finishing around 10-15 hours training he changed his mind and he wanted to have end user level – SAP training along with his training without any additional cost, which is against the rules and regulations of the admission policy of the opposite party and the mere excuse that the actual module wanted to learn was end user level not the functional level. The SAP trainers are very costly and the opposite party has to pay Rs. 1,000/- per hour and the SAP server access is also very costly. So, dropping the course after attending about 50% syllabus is no way acceptable as the opposite party has spent money for training. The opposite pay is ready to provide the remaining training on production planning module for which his admission was taken.

3. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to
A3 were marked. Neither oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

4. The points that came up for consideration as as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fees?

2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the complainant joined a course of the opposite party by name SAP training on 22-03-2012 and paid a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of fees. According to the complainant, his visiting and upon discussion with the institution of the opposite party, he came to know that course offered by the opposite party does not maintain his requirements and accordingly he requested the opposite party to refund the fees. It is stated that since there was no response on the part of the opposite party, the complainant caused Ext. A2 letter to the opposite party highlighting his grievances, the opposite party received the same evident from Ext. A3 acknowledgment due card to which as well there was no response. Though the opposite party stated many reasons in their version in not refunding the fee paid by the complainant, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. Moreover, the evidence of the complainant remains unrebutted and unchallenged. In view of the above, we are only to hold that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fee of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite party.

6. Point No. ii. :- The grievance of the complainant having been substantially met, we do not think costs of the proceedings and compensation are called for. Rejected hence.

7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall refund Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of January 2014.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========