DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 164 of 9.9.2020

                                      Decided on:      8.2.2023

Surinder Singh aged 48 years son of Trilochan Singh, R/o H.No.546, Amandeep Colony, Rajpura, District Patiala.        

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Managing Director/The Directors/Authorized signatory of the Allen Career Institute Sh.Gobind Maheshwari, Sh.Rajesh Maheshwari, Sh.Barjesh Maheshwari.
2. The Centre Head/Authorized representative  of Allen Career Institute having its office at 808, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

PRESENT:                   Sh.Chamandeep Mittal, counsel for complainant.

                             Opposite parties ex-parte.

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Surinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Allen Career Institute (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That institute of OPs is providing coaching of various streams and as such complainant admitted his son Bhavyajot Singh with the institute of the OPs on 10.5.2017 and deposited fee of Rs.1,03,200/- with them through online banking NEFT from his banker at Rajpura. The OPs through e-mail dated 20.5.2019 confirmed receipt of payment made by the complainant. In the first week of June,2017, complainant approached and requested the instructors/other staff members of the OPs about the abnormal behaviour to Bhavyajot Singh and further told that son of the complainant is not properly adjusting in the atmosphereand pattern of study of institute of OPs. The staff members of the OPs assured the complainant that they will give proper attention and care as well as proper counseling to his son but they failed to do so.At this the complainant requested OPs for the refund of fee deposited by him. He also sent legal notice dated 22.8.2019 upon them but the OPs refused to refund the amount to the complainant. There is thus not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade of practice on the part of the OPs, as a result of which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment .Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was duly sent to the OPs through registered post. Neither RC received back nor OPs appeared to contest the case. Hence the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In ex-parte evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant has furnished affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
5. The evidence adduced by the complainant goes un rebutted on record as OPs did not contest the averments of the complainant.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The relief sought for by the complainant is that the OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,03,200/- alongwith interest @18% per annum alongwith compensation and costs.
8. The perusal of the record shows that the complainant had admitted his son in the institute being run by the OPs on 10.5.2017 and deposited Rs.1,03,200/-, the payment receipt in this regard is Ex.C1, which is also admitted by the OPs in their reply to the legal notice,Ex.C5, sent by the complainant. The complainant was not satisfied with the services provided by the OPs and discontinued to take any further part in the studies and lectures being provided by the OPs and requested for the refund of the fees paid to the OPs. The OPs in their reply to the legal notice had  averred that the complainant has never informed the OPs before leaving the institute and no request was ever made with the OPs for the refund of the fee.
9. The evidence adduced by the complainant remained un-rebutted as the OPs did not appear to contest the averments of the complainant. Furthermore, the OPs in their reply to the legal notice have duly admitted the admission and receipt of fee from the complainant.
10. The entire fee for the course of 12 months has been paid in lumpsum by the complainant, which appears to be unreasonable as the fee should have been collected in quarterly/half yearly installments. However, we are of the opinion that the OPs have opened the institute and have incurred various expenses on the operation of the institute. As such the OPs cannot be held responsible for the refund of 100% fee deposited by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant had joined the institute at his own sweet will and utilized the services of the OP for 2 months.
11. In view of the discussion above, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct the OPs to refund Rs.51600/- i.e. 50% of the fee of Rs.1,03,200/-  deposited by the complainant, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.     
12.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President