Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/23/2018

Renu Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Institute of Computer Accounts of India, ICAII (Regd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar

02 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/23/2018
Date of Institution	:	11/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2018

 

Renu Thakur wife of Sh. Vimal Kumar, Resident of Village Makkar, P.O. Karer, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur (H.P) at present residing in H.No. 41, Village Balongi, Near Khera Mandir, District Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     The Institute of Computer Accounts of India, ICAII (Regd.), through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory, SCO 271, Sector 32-D, Near Nirman Theatre, Chandigarh.

 

[2]     The Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory, The Institute of Computer Accounts of India, ICAII (Regd.), House No.2266, Sector 61, (Phase-7), Mohali.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arun Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
		OPs ex-parte.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Mrs. Renu Thakur, complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Institute of Computer Accounts of India and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that she approached the Opposite Parties for doing M.Sc. Zoology (two years course) from Karnataka State Open University (KSOU) and paid Rs.14,000/- on 08.07.2014, towards fee for two Semesters, vide receipt Annexure C-1 and thereafter, for the third Semester, paid Rs.7,000/- vide receipt dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure C-2). It has been averred that the Complainant had given the examinations of 1^st and 2^nd Semester of M.Sc. Zoology, but later it came to her knowledge that the University of KSOU was de-registered by the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, in the month of June, 2015, which fact was never intimated by the Opposite Parties to her and even charged from her the fee for the 3^rd Semester. Faced with this situation, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs.21,000/- along with interest, upon which she was asked to submit affidavit along with relevant fee receipts, which she did vide Annexure C-3. However, when the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.11.2017 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3.         Complainant led evidence.      
4.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant (Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 being ex-parte). 
5.         In the present circumstances, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.  The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have initiate and issue refund, promptly, when requested by the Complainant, especially when the Complainant complied with the desired formalities, but they failed to do so, and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again and even through legal notice dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure C-4). Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
6.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.21,000/- to the Complainant, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit, till it is actually paid;

[b]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

7.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of deposit, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                        

02.05.2018

                                Sd/- 

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

                                  Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”  

so-bidi-font-weight:normal'>

 

ck'>MEMBER

 

“Dutt”