Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

484/2009

M.Geetha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, The Datamation - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Jayasri Baskar

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 04.05.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 25.01.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.484/2009

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

M. Geetha,

Advocate,

D/o. E. Muthuswamy,

Door No.1, Flat No.C, Grace Apartments,

Balavinayagar Nagar Main Road,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.                                                      .. Complainant.                                             

 

                                                                                        ..Versus..

 

The Director,

The Datamation,

No.41, TTK Salai,

Chennai – 600 018.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

 

Counsel for complainant            :  M/s. Jayasri Baskar & another

Counsel for the opposite party  :  M/s. Shah and Shah & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund the course fee of Rs.5,250/- paid for LSAT and the re-admission fee of Rs.500/- totaling to a sum of Rs.5,750/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the year 2004 to till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony, physical strain, monetary loss and inconvenience with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she joined the course LSAT in the opposite party’s institution and paid a sum of Rs.5,250/- towards course fees on 22.06.2004.  The complainant submits that the opposite party even after the colourful advertisement and admission of the complainant has not provided any faculty to teach the said course and asked the complainant to attend GMAT classes (English) for 2 days a week for 2 months.  Thereafter, the complainant was given assurance that the opposite party would arrange suitable faculty to teach the special course LSAT.  The complainant also joined the said special course LSAT and requested the opposite party to adjust the fees already paid towards LSAT agreeing that the opposite party adjusted a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the fees for IELTS and refused to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,250/- and further claimed a sum of Rs.500/- towards readmission fees for IELTS.  The complainant also paid the said of Rs.500/- towards readmission fees.  Thereafter, the complainant continued the course for few days and discontinued due to her ill health.  The complainant submits that after seeing advertisement and the complainant took admission.  Thereafter, the opposite party failed to provide faculty in the opposite party’s institution.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states the complainant joined the course LSAT and paid a sum of Rs.5,250/- towards the fees.  Thereafter, the complainant joined IELTS course in the same year itself and filed this case on 04.05.2009 after two years which is barred by limitation.   The opposite party states that the complainant joined the course LSAT and paid the fees on 22.06.2004 by that time the suitable faculties are not available.  But the complainant continued her studies and thereafter, the complainant herself voluntarily change the course to IELTS and paid the readmission fees which is a separate cause of action.  The amount paid on 22.06.2004 towards LSAT course has been adjusted for IELTS course.   The complainant submits that this case is barred by limitation that the complainant cause of action arose on 22.06.2004 and the complaint is filed in 2009.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and document Ex.B1 is marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.5,750/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant filed his written arguments.  The opposite party has neither filed written arguments nor come forward to advance oral arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant joined the course LSAT in the opposite party’s institution and paid a sum of Rs.5,250/- towards fees on 22.06.2004 as per Ex.A1.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party even after the colourful advertisement and admission of the complainant has not provided any faculty to teach the said course and asked the complainant to attend GMAT classes (English) for 2 days in a week for 2 months. Thereafter, the complainant was given assurance that the opposite party would arrange suitable faculty to teach the special course LSAT.  The complainant also joined the said special course LSAT and requested the opposite party to adjust the fees already paid towards LSAT agreeing that the opposite party adjusted a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the fees for IELTS and refused to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,250/- and further claimed a sum of Rs.500/- towards readmission fees for IELTS.  The complainant also paid the said sum of Rs.500/- towards readmission fees.  Thereafter, the complainant continued the course for few days and discontinued due to her ill health.  The complainant further contended that after advertisement and admission failing to provide faculty amounts to deficiency in service.  Equally, after due adjustment of fees refusing to refund the excess amount and claiming readmission fees  amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.5,750/- with a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant joined the course LSAT and paid a sum of Rs.5,250/- towards the fees.  Thereafter, the complainant joined IELTS course in the same year itself and filed this case on 04.05.2009 after two years which is barred by limitation.   But on a careful perusal of the Ex.A2, it is very clear that the opposite party collected a sum of Rs.500/- on 26.12.2006 towards readmission fees establishes that the claim is barred by limitation.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant joined the course LSAT and paid the fees on 22.06.2004 by that time the suitable faculties are not available.  But the complainant continued her studies and thereafter, the complainant herself voluntarily change the course to IELTS and paid the readmission fees which is a separate cause of action.  The amount paid on 22.06.2004 towards LSAT course has been adjusted for IELTS course.   The allegation that total fees for IELTS course is only Rs.4,000/- is not proved by the complainant.   Furthermore, this case is barred by limitation.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	22.06.2004	Copy of statement from bank regarding particulars of payment
Ex.A2	26.12.2006	Copy of copy of receipt regarding payment of re-admission fee
Ex.A3	03.03.2009	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A4		Copy of acknowledgement card

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- 

Ex.B1

26.12.2006

Receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT