Karnataka

Kolar

CC/14/2024

M.ShivaShankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Akash Byju's Institute - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 04/03/2024

Date of Order: 13/06/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:13^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:14/2024

1. Sri. M. Shiva Shankar,

S/o. K.M. Muniyappa,

Aged about 51 years,

R/at: 114, Nisarga Nilaya,

Keelukote,

Kolar.

 

2. Inchara K.S

D/o. M. Shiva Shankar,

Aged about 16 years,

R/at: 114, Nisarga Nilaya,

Keelukote, Kolar,

Rep. by Guardian Father,

M. Shiva Shankara.

(Rep. by In-Person)                                            ….Complainants.

                                                                                                                - V/s –

1. The Manager,

Akash BYJU’S Institute,

No. 25/3, Old Indira Public School,

Tekal Road, PC Halli,

Chaudeshwari Nagar,

Kolar.

(Exparte)

 

2. Akash Educational Service Limited,

Register Office No.111, 8^th Cross,

Paramount Garden,

Talagattapur,

Kanakapura Main Road,

Bangalore-560062.

 

3. Corporation Office,

Akash Tower, No.8, Pose Road,

New Delhi – 110005.

(Exparte)                                                     ….Opposite Parties.                     

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT.,

1. The complainant is the party in-person has filed the consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP.No.1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and seeking relief to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the complainant to the OPs Institution, and Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation, mental agony and financial loss in the ends of justice and equity.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, on 04/06/2023 complainant was admits his daughter to the OP Institution for NEET Integrated Class and the course duration is for 2 years.  Further stated that, the complainant was paid Rs.1,50,065/- by obtaining Bank loan and paid to the OPs.   It is alleged that, the daughter of the complainant has taken the coaching at the OP’s Institution for the period of 01 year only at Kolar, subsequently after the year the OPs failed to continue the course, and hence alleged that, due to act of OPs, the daughter of the complainant suffered educational loss and effected to his daughter psychologically and for himself also.  It is further stated that, the daughter of the complainant is the meritorious student who secured 95% of the marks in her 10^th examination.  It is alleged that, OPs called for the parents meeting and informed that, they will not continue the coaching in their institution, but offer to get the NEET examination coaching at Bangalore instead of Kolar.  Further to import the coaching at Bangalore OP demanded additional amount to pay to an extent of Rs.1,35,000/- and other amount towards fees, laundry charges etc.  That the complainant alleges that, at the time of admission to the OP Institution they promise to conduct a coaching class at Kolar itself weekly 4 days, but to get admission in other institution, they offered about Rs.4,00,000/-.  Hence having no other option complainant approached to this Commission with the present complaint.  Further alleged that, Ops failed to provide coaching for NEET examination for the period of 2 years at Kolar itself as they promised and subsequently discontinued the coaching centre at kolar and ask the daughter of complainant to join the course at Bangalore to get coaching for NEET examination, which leads to filing of this complaint.

 

3. Upon issuance of the notice to the OP.No.1 to 3 and during the course of proceedings by filing memo complainant got deleted the OP.No.2 from the proceedings.   Further on perusal of postal track report with affidavit of the complainant, though notice served on OP.No.1 & 3, but the Ops failed to appear before this Commission and to answer the claim of the complainant, consequently OP.No.1 placed exparte.  On perusal of the order sheet it also discloses that, during the midst of the proceedings OP.No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed an application under order 9 Rule 7 along with memorandum of facts praying to set aside the exparte orders.  For the reasons assigning in the orders dated: 13/05/2024 in the order sheet the application filed by the OP.No.1 is rejected due to having no powers to recall the exparte orders.  Hence the matter is posted for evidence of the complainant and the complainant filed his affidavit evidence.  Though Ops given an opportunity to submit their arguments, but, the Ops remind absent.  Hence posted for orders on merits.

 

4. On the basis of the available pleading on record the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

 

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops for discontinuation of coaching centre at Kolar?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

Heard the arguments of complainant.  Perused the evidence placed on record and our answers to the above points as under:-

 

Point No. (1):-   In the Affirmative.

Point No. (2):-   In the Partly Affirmative.

Point No. (3):-   As per the final orders

                        for the following

                             

5299419885.  

5. Point No. (1):- On perusal of the affidavit evidence placed before us, it is a specific allegation made against the Op institution that, the complainant was admitted his daughter for NEET examination coaching centre of OPs and paid Rs.1,50,065/-by obtaining Bank loan. The main allegations of the complainant is that, duration of the NEET examination coaching is for the period of 2 years, but the OPs provided the coaching facility only for 1 year and due to their own reasons closed the institution and informed the complainant and his daughter to join the Bangalore centre, for which complainants refused to join coaching centre at Bangalore, due to financial problem and inconvenience.  Hence the complainant alleged that, the OPs institution promise to import coaching to the all the students of Kolar at Kolar itself for 2 years, and thereon, he was admitted his daughter to the coaching centre, but OPs acted contrary to their promise which leads to filing of this complaint.

 

6. On perusal of the annexure-B, admission form for Classrooms/Hybrid course produced in support his evidence, it is evident that, the students (including the daughter of the complainant) admitted to the course 2 year Integrated Classroom course for NEET after Board at city Kolar.  Further on perusal of annexure-C, attendance certificate is also discloses that, daughter of the complainant pursued the coaching for 01 year from the OP.No.1 institution and latter on OP.No.1 discontinued the coaching for the reasons best known to them.  On such discontinuation obviously affects psychologically to the students mind and also to the parents.  Whereas the OPs failed to give any rebuttable evidence and hence the evidence placed on record is acceptable one.

 

7. It is worth to note that, after admission of the students with a promise to required coaching in Kolar city itself, the poor and middle class people obviously join to get the NEET examination coaching at kolar itself those who are interested for the course despite their financial problems or Aid.  Hence it is the duty of the Ops as they promised they have to provide coaching for the NEET examination for the agreed period of 2 years at kolar itself and not doing so for any reasons, it amounts to deficiency in service on their part, also informing the students or their parents to get the coaching at Bangalore by incurring additional expenditure, it leads to unfair trade practice.  Under these circumstances we reached to conclusion that, OP.No.1 & 3 are deficient in their service.   Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) in the Affirmative.
8. Point No. (2):- Further the complainant somehow as per his own saying, the daughter of the complainant attended 1 year course, but due to act of OPs another year coaching is stopped, but the complainant initially paid the amount of Rs.1,50,065/- to the Ops institution.   Under the attended circumstances of the case and to strike the balance of justice between the parties, we deem it just and proper to direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of complaint till its realization.  Further due to the contrary act of the OPs and made the complainant to Wander from Pillar to Post, and hence complainant is entitled for cost of Rs.2,000/- for which OPs are liable to pay the same.  However, complainant not placed any cogent evidence on record to establish for entitlement of compensation as prayed in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (2) in the Partly Affirmative.

 

9.  Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) & (2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part with cost.
2. That the OP.No.(1) & (3) i.e “The Manager, Akash BYJU’S Institute” at Kolar and the “Corporation Office concerned officer at New Delhi” are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of complaint till its realization.
3. Further OP.No.(1) & (3) are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
4. Further OP.No.(1) & (3) are hereby directed to comply the orders within 30 days from the date of order and submit compliance report within 45 days from the date of this Order.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

        (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 13^th DAY OF JUNE 2024)

 

 

 

        MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT