IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.
Dated this 6th day of September 2016
Complaint No.118/2016
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli, President.
2) Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi Member
3) Smt. Sunita Member
-***-
Complainant: Prema D/o. Shivappa Kulkarni
Age: 35years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o.: H.No.1513, Ganeshapur Galli,
Shahapur, Belgaum-590003.
(By Sri. M.R.Birje, Advocate).
V/s.
Opponent:
The Principal,
Anand Motor Driving School,
292/1, Goodshed Road,
Belagavi-590002,
Tal & Dist. Belagavi.
(O.P is placed ex-parte,)
(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita, Member)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service to not teach car driving.
2) In-spite service of notices, O.P. has remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.
3) In support of the claim made in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain original documents. We have heard the argument of complainant advocate and perused the records.
4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?
5) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.
REASONS
6) The complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and she has stated in her affidavit that, to lookafter the house property at Pune and for management and cultivation of the agricultural lands, the complainant decided to learn a car. The complainant came to know that the OP has been running the driving school and the OP will teach the driving the car and 2 wheelers. The complainant further states that when she asked the OP about the driving school fees and about the procedure the OP specifically told to the complainant that, the fees to teach driving of car will Rs.3,000/- and to get a driving license the charge will Rs.1,000/- and the OP specifically promised and assured the complainant that the OP will teach the perfect driving within a period of 30 days and the lady instructor will come to complainant’s home along with car to teach a car driving. The complainant further alleged that believing the words of the OP the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- to the OP on 02.12.2015. After receiving Rs.3,000/- the OP has issued a receipt to the complainant under receipt no.07 on 02.12.2015 by putting the seal and signature of the OP driving school and promised that the car driving class will start from 03.12.2015.
7) The complainant further alleged that on 03.12.2015, the instructor has come to the complainant’s home along with the car to teach driving. Thereafter the instructor has come to the complainant’s home only twice i.e. on 05.12.2015 and on 06.12.2015, but thereafter no instructor has came to the complainant’s home to teach car driving. The complainant further alleged that, thereafter the complainant has approached to the OPs office on 12.12.2015 but, the OP told the complainant that, due to busy schedule it was not possible to come to teach car driving and told that, from next day the instructor will come to the complainant’s home to teach the car driving. Believing the words of the OP the complainant come back. But unfortunately no instructor from the OPs driving school has came to complainant’s home along with car to teach a driving of a car. The complainant waited for few days but no instructor has come to the complainant’s home afterwards. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has repeatedly called the OP through her mobile phone and approached the driving school office on 18.12.2015 and on 23.12.2015 but the OP neglected the complainant by making false promise and assurance. The complainant called the OP several times but no one has received the complainant’s call.
8) Lastly fed up with the opponents behavior she has issued legal notice through her advocate on 11/02/2016 calling upon the opponent for the further repay of the amount of Rs.3,000/- along with compensation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was not claimed by the OP and returned back on 15/02/2016. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.
9) On perusal documents the original receipt produced by the complainant, the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- to the OP on 02/12/2015 for car driving and the OP have neglected intentionally and avoiding the complainant and escaping from his duty to teach a car driving, has to be believed and accepted. After service of the notice the opponents failed to appear before the forum hence placed as ex-parte. Hence it is well settled legal position that non teaching of the car driving, amounts to deficiency in service.
10) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. has been proved.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The O.P. represented by the Principal is hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- with future rate of interest @8% P.A. from 03/12/2015 till realization of the amount.
Further the O.P. represented by the Principal is hereby directed and to pay sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.
(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6th day of September 2016).
Member Member President.
msr
