Maharashtra

Pune

CC/12/544

Vinay R. Newani, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

-

15 Jul 2013

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/544
 
1. Vinay R. Newani,
F202, Mont Vert Seville, Wakad, Pune-411 027.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Climb First, Omkar Plaza, Nr. Ambekar Chowk, Medi Point, Aundh, Pune.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. V. P. UTPAT PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. S. M. KUMBHAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

Complainant present in person 

Opponent absent (Ex-parte)

 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President                      Place   :  PUNE

 

 

// J U D G M E N T //

(15/07/2013)

 

 

          This complaint is filed by the consumer against the service provider for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The  complainant  is  a  Software Engineer residing at Wakad, Pune - 27.  According to him, he took admission in the institute of the opponent and paid an amount of Rs. 4000/-.  The opponent assured to provide service of University selection, SOP, LOR, Essays, Application Counseling and Visa Procedures.  But he has not received any of the service as per agreement.  Hence, he has asked refund of Rs. 4000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as well as cost of Rs. 500/-.

 

2]      The opponent though duly served remained absent.  Hence, the  complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opponent. 

 

3]      The complainant has filed affidavit as well as documentary evidence, such as correspondence through e-mail, copy of the receipt.  It reveals from the same that, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4000/- to the opponent and there were correspondence between both the parties through e-mail.  It is the case of the complainant that he has not received any services as per agreement.  Hence, there is deficiency in service.  The allegations made by the complainant had remained unchallenged as well as corroborated by the documentary evidence, such as receipt of payment of Rs. 4000/-.  Hence, I held that complainant has proved case of deficiency in service.  In my opinion, he is entitled to refund of Rs. 4000/- along with compensation of Rs. 2000/- in lump sum for deficiency in service, mental harassment and physical sufferings and cost of the litigation.      In the result, I pass the following order,

 

**  ORDER **

 

                  

1.                 Complaint is partly allowed.

 

2.                 It is hereby declared that the opponent

has caused deficiency in service. 

 

3.       The opponent is directed to pay total amount

of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. Six Thousand only) to the

complainant within 6 weeks from the date of

receipt of this order.

 

4.       Copies of this order be furnished to the

parties free of cost.

 

5.                 Parties are directed to collect the sets,

which were provided for Members within

one month from the date of order, otherwise

those will be destroyed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. V. P. UTPAT]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. S. M. KUMBHAR]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.