CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 25/05/2012

CC /82/2012

Bhargavi,

Theramcode (H)

Keralasseri P.O, Palakkad-678 641

Present Address

Bhargavi.K,

Parakkalam(H),

Kallekkad P.O, Palakkad - Complainant

( Party in person)

Vs

The Principal,

Brilliant Tutorial,

7/347, 2^nd Floor,

M.J,Complex, College Road,

Palakkad-678001 - Opposite party

(BY ADV.V.V.Sivaraman)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

The case of the complaint is as follows:

The daughter of the complainant got admission in the opposite party institution as per the scholarship test conducted by the opposite party. It was informed by the opposite party that the tuition class will be commenced on 26/06/2012. According to the instruction given by the opposite party the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7886/- as tuition fee to the opposite party before the classes were started. After attending the class the daughter of the complainant was not satisfied. Because the class which they provided were not at all useful to her subjects. The classes were mainly sticked up on computer and IT field. So she was not ready to attend the class further. The complainant's daughter was studying in 10^th std.

So the complainant demanded the opposite party to return the tuition fee which they have already paid. But the opposite party is not ready to return the fee amount. Inspite of several request the opposite party is not ready to return the paid amount. The act of opposite party caused mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to return the paid amount of Rs.7886/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.

Opposite party denies all the averments put forward by the complainant. According to the opposite party the complainant itself is bad for none joinder of necessary parties and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The application form was issued before remitting the fee amount. It is written in the application form that “the fees once remitted would not be refunded”. Opposite party admits that the daughter of the complainant attended the class on 2^nd June. It is not correct to say that she decided to discontinue the class as it is not useful. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

The evidence adduced consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext. A1 to A3 and Ext.B1.

Heard both parties.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the matter?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the paid amount?

3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

4. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues No. I

Opposite party contents that the Chennai Courts alone has the jurisdiction to consider the disputes between the customer and the opposite party. As per Consumer Protection Act Forum is entitled to entertain the complaint having cause of action wholly or in part arise in the limits of the district. In this complaint the opposite party is situated at Palakkad. The complainant has submitted the application form at opposite party office. As per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, Act not in derogation of any other law:-”The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” So the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.

Issues No. II to IV

The case of the complainant is that her daughter got admission in the opposite party institution as per the Brillaince Scholarship Test conducted by the opposite party . They have paid of Rs.7886/- towards the fee to the opposite party before the classes were started. Ext.A1 reveals the same. The opposite party demanded the complainant to pay the entire fee for one year. At the time of joining the course, the complainant was in the impression that it is a tuition class to the 10^th std students. But after attending the class for one day the daughter of the complainant understood that the coaching will not be useful to her studies. Ext.A2 the enrolment form shows that the target is III/, AIEEE/MBBHS comprehensive one year class room foundation course for STD X^th. Moreover attending one class is not sufficient to decide whether the class is useful or not. At the time of argument the opposite party submitted that they have spent 85% of the paid amount as tax and material support to the student. In Ext.A2 document it is clearly shows that it is a foundation course. Complainant says that they have taken the admission in the said institution in the belief that it will be a tuition class for the X^th std students and it will be useful to them. When the student attended the class for one day she came to understand that the class will not be useful to her studies.

It is the boundain duty of the complainant is to enquire about the scope of the course and go through the application form. It is true that an assessment can't be made by attending one class. So that deficiency of service can't be attributed on the part of opposite party. Any how opposite party admits that they have received the amount as per Ext.A1 document. More over opposite party has not produced any document to show that the seat of the complainant's daughter is still left vacant.

From the above discussions we are of the view that the opposite party is liable to refund the amount after deducting the expenses of tax, books and other materials.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st day of August, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1– Receipt No.9939 dt.24.06.2011 for Rs.7886/- of Brilliant Tutorials (Original).

Ext.A2- Enrolment Form of Brilliant Tutorials.

Ext.A3- Acknowledgement card

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1-Notice of Brilliant Tutorials Announcing Scholarship Test-2011

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1-Bhargavi.K

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.