This is a case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Brief facts of the complainant’s case described by the complainant are as under.
That the complainant has submitted a Complaint Under section 35(1)(a) Read with section 34(1) and 34(2)(b)&(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 before this Commission.
That the cause of action for filing the Complaint Under section 35(1)(a) Read with section 34(1) and 34(2)(b)&(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 arose on 30/11/|2021 when the complainant enrolled herself for West Bengal Civil Services CoE (2016), a one year program to held at the facility of the opposite party at the address mention in the cause title.
That during this period the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1, 45,169/-to the opposite party towards tuition fees, cost of study materials, library charges, mock test fees and such others. (Annexure: 1: Money Receipts and Invoices of payment by the complainant to the opposite party in /2_ Sheets)
That the complainant states that there is a fair chance of success in the instant complaint.
That the course initiated in the month of January 2021 but stopped in the last week of April 2021.
That the complainant thereafter tried to enter the classes online from Jalpaiguri but no response was given to her by the opposite party.
That the complainant awaited response by the opposite party for the next 4-5 months and on 30/11/2021, sent a letter to the opposite party requesting refund of the course fees. (Annexure: 2: Letter dated 30/11/2021)
Page 3 of 10
That the opposite party did neither send any reply nor did refund the course fees to the complainant.
That the opposite party is found was much too reluctant to refund the amount claimed by the complainant. The complainant states to have suffered mental torture, financial losses and harassment in order to bear additional expenses in the interests of future career and prospects. Such omission and commission and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
That the complainant alleges that the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice because the opposite party has compelled the complainant to pay the Fees of the entire course without providing the agreed service.
That it is a duty cast upon the opposite party to hassle free services to the complainant, to which the opposite party has miserably failed and put your complainant into a great deal of harassment, inconvenience, frustration, expenses and mental agony.
That the complainant states that the complainant is legally entitled to recover the expenses incurred along with compensation and damages for causing the complainant unprecedented harassment due to the irrational act of the opposite party.
That the cause of action for the present complaint arose on 30/11/|2021 and the same is still continuing.
RELIEF CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANT
RY Direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.1,45,169/- (rupees one lakh forty five thousand one hundred and sixty nine only) deposited at the time of enrolment and thereafter for West Bengal Civil Services CoE (2016) at the facility of the opposite party.
b. Direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000（rupees one lakh only) for practicing unfair trade practice on its part;
c. Direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) for deficiency in service on its part;
d. Direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) for harassment caused to the complainant;
e. Direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.50, 000(rupees fifty thousand only) towards the cost of the present litigation;
f. Direction to the O.P. to pay to the complainant the interest accrued on the awarded amount @ 12% calculated at monthly rests from the date of cause of action till actual realization;
g. Any other relief, the Hon'ble Forum further pleased to award.
Total reliefs claimed = Rs. 4, 95,169/-
Total Claim does not exceed Rs.5,00,000/-
Notice upon the opposite party was duly served. The O.P contested the matter with filing written version, interrogatories/ questionnaires for
the complainant, Brief notes of argument and also participates in the hearing of argument.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
In the first para of the writen version the opposite party stated as under.
“That the opposite party is renowned educationist and imparts educational training to students for different competitive examinations”
On dated 10/08/2022 opposite party files their written version without making any affidavit the same opposite party never file any evidence on affidavit. On dated 7th July 2023 the opposite party files written notes of argument which also not supported by any affidavit. All the documents filed by the opposite party only signed by the authorised signatory of ROYS INSTITUTE OF COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION PRIVATE LIMITED.
The written version and the brief notes of argument file by the opposite party are totally different. In their written version the opposite party denied all allegations made by the complement and also describes the fact. In their written notes of argument the opposite party stated that they are the educational institute and this case is not maintainable before this Commission. In support of their written notes of argument the opposite party also cited some judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the Hon’ble NCDRC.
The brief notes of argument file by the opposite party are signed by the authorized signatory ROYS INSTITUTE OF COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION PRIVATE LIMITED. From the upper mentioned fact it is clear that the opposite party is a private limited company and they are providing training to the students for different competitive examinations. The Identity of the opposite party is not an educational institution. They are only providing training and giving coaching / tuition to the students for different competitive examinations. So the opposite party is not an educational institution. Their identity is only as a coaching centre for competitive examination and any consumer case against them is maintainable before this commission.
After filing the complaint petition the complement files evidence on affidavit on 10th August 2022 after that the complaint files written notes of argument without sign. On dated 3rd March 2023 the opposite party files interrogatories/ questionnaires for the complainant. The interrogatories included 35 questions. On dated 5th April 2023 the compliment files answer to the questions arise by the opposite party. The complement just denied all the questions arise by the opposite party but never directly answer any questions.
In the complaint petition (Para 3) the complement stated that " cause of action arrows on 30/11/2021 when the compliment enrolled herself for West Bengal civil service COE 2016 a 1 year program to held at the facility on the opposite party at the addresses mention in the cause title".
I their written version para 8 the opposite party stated as under
“That the complainant entered into a course called IDT which is a course designed to highlight and ascertain the interests of the students and the best way ahead for pursuing the career ahead and accordingly pursue the stated course which best suits the inclination of a student. Accordingly, the complainant took admission in the course in the month of January 2020 but for reasons best known to her, the complainant commenced her IDT course in the month of September 2020 under the batch name IDT-42 and completed the same in October 2020 and thereafter made part payment for enrolling into “WBCS competitive preparation course” on 8th November, 2020.”
From the statement of account submitted by the complainant it is not clear that if the cause of action started on 30/11/|2021 when the complainant enrolled herself for West Bengal Civil Services COE (2016), a one year program then why she started payment from 23/01/2020? Complainant never challenge the written version (para 8) the opposite party. Form this fact it is easily understandable that the complainant took admission in the course in the month of January 2020 but for reasons best known to her, the complainant commenced her IDT course in the month of September 2020 under the batch name IDT-42 and completed the same in October 2020 and thereafter made part payment for enrolling into “WBCS competitive preparation course” on 8th November, 2020.
According to the opposite party the second phase of coaching started from November 2020 and the complainant attended the said class and completed 1st -6th semester. From September 2021 the complainant discontinues her classes.
In the complaint petition the complainant stated that the course initiated in the month of January 2021 but stopped in the last week of April 2021 thereafter she tried to enter the classes online from Jalpaiguri but no response was given to her by the opposite party.
Both parties submitted various documents which prove the first phase (IDT) of the coaching /training. But, it is not proved by any document that the complainant completed the WBCS competitive preparation course. The attendance sheet submitted by the opposite party is totally denied by the complainant. It is also not clear that why the opposite party conducted online classes when they received money from the complainant for regular offline classes? And why the complainant gives her consent on this? It is also not understandable that why the complainant not informed the opposite party immediately after her failure to enter in online classes? On 30/11/2021, sent a letter to the opposite party requesting refund of the course fees of Rs. 1,23,864/- but in the complaint petition she claim Rs. 1,45,169/- as course fees. No explanation was given by the complainant on this matter.
It is clear that complainant completed his first phase of coaching and not able to complaint the second phase of the coaching from the opposite party. According to the payment receipts filed by the complainant it transpires that the complainant deposited Rs. 60,140/- to the opposite party from 17/10/2020 to 24/04/2021 for the second phase of the coaching. The document filed by the opposite party is also support the same.
We have gone through the records and other related documents of the case and have come to conclusion that the complainant and the opposite party are be liable for the contributory negligence. In view of the above discussion we may come to the conclusion that the O.P. is partly guilty for deficiency in services and the service provided by the O.P. is not up to the mark. As the complainant was unable to complete the second phase of the coaching for contributory negligence then only the refund of the amount (60,140/-) for the second phase which was deposited by the complainant to the opposite party will be justified. No compensation for contributory negligence is justifiable according to us.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as specified bellow.
All points are disposed of. In the result the case/ application succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
We allow the consumer case in part by issuing the following directions
- Opposite Party is directed to pay the Rs. 60,140/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand one Hundred forty Only) along with 7% simple interest per annum from 24/04/2021 till the date of payment to the complainant.
- Opposite Party is directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the consumer legal aid account of this commission.
The order should be comply within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order failing which the complainant/O.P will be at liberty to put the order in execution according to provision of law.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
