IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF April 2018
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LLB ,Member
CC.No.50/2017
S.Radhakrishnan Nair : Complainant
Puthenpurackal House, North
Mynagappally P.O
Kunnathoor
Kollam
V/S
1. The Principal /MD : Opposite parties
Zephyr , Ayurveda College
Junction, Trivandrum -1
2. The Officer in charge
Zephyr, Kollam Centre
(Centre Code – ZQR.67), Polayathode,
Kollam
ORDER
SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed by the complainant against 2 opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking to direct opposite parties to refund an amount of rupees 20,000/-being the fees paid at the time of admission and also seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental pain and sufferings due to then non refund of fee along with costs of the proceedings.
The averment in the complaint in short are as follows , complainant’s son Govind P.R took admission on repeaters class (medicine entrance) in opposite party institution on 05-09-16 and remitted Rs.20,000/- on the same day. On 06-09-16 complainant’s son Govind went there and attended the repeaters
(2)
class at the opposite party institution. Govind feels that the classes are poor quality and there only 3 students in the class. Hence complainant’s son discontinued the class and complainant contacted the opposite parties to refund the amount. Opposite parties not refunded. Though complainant sent notice to opposite parties for demanding the refund of fee, opposite parties not refund the amount. Hence complainant approached the forum for relief
Though the opposite parties received notice from this forum they have neither appeared nor filed any written version.
Points for consideration :-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get the amount claimed in the complaint with interest and as prayed for in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs?
The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked five documents as Ext. P1 to P5.
Heard the complainant’s council.
Points No. 1 & 2:-
This specific case of the complainant is that on 05-09-16 complainant’s son had taken admission for repeaters class (Medicine) at opposite parties institution and remitted Rs.20,000/- as fees. Ext .P1receipt issued to the complainant would establish the same . There after complainant’s son Govind attended the class on 06-09-16 and due to the poor quality of the coaching he discontinued the class.
The complainant has further sworn in the proof affidavit on that day when his son attended the class at the opposite party institution at Kollam only 3 more students were attended the class, the standard of the coaching class was substandard and therefore his son discontinued the coaching class. But he has no
(3)
such case in the earliest version in Ext.P3 notice which is seen issued to the opposite party as early on 14/11/2016 , wherein it is stated that “Nne kmt¦-XnI Imc-W-§-fm Ip«n B Hä Znhkw am{Xta ¢mkn attend sNbvXpÅp. ]o¶oSv Xm¦-fpsS Øm]-\-¯n ¢mkn\v t]mbnÃ.”. The complainant has no case in Ext.P3 that his son has discontinued the coaching classes at the opposite party’s centre due to the poor quality of classes. The complainant has also not examined his son to prove the exact reason for discontinuing the classes at the opposite party institution. In short there no reliable materials to hold at least prima facia that the complainant’s son discontinued the coaching class due to poor quality of coaching class at the opposite party institution.
It is pertinent to point out that the coaching class is for one year from 06/09/2016. After attending the starting days class how a student can come to a conclusion that the standard of classes which will be take for the entire year will be poor. By attending only one class one cannot evaluate and the standard of coaching class for the entire year. The lack of sufficient students is not a valid ground either to discontinue the class or to find that the class taken in future will be substandard. If the complainant’s son had discontinued the class after attending the classes held by all teacher at least for one week or after reading the notes supplied by the Institution it would have to be considered . Furthermore the earliest version of the complainant to discontinue the class is “technical reasons” and not the poor quality of the classes. In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get back the money on that ground that the standard of classes taken at the opposite party Institution was poor especially when it is stated in Ext.P3 notice itself that the son of the complainant discontinued his coaching class due to his own reasons which he called “technical reason” and not due to any of the fault of the opposite parties.
(4)
Petitioner has miserably failed to prove that there is any deficiency of service, gross negligence or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief sought for. The Point answered accordingly :-
In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Vijimole.G transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of April 2018
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1:- Fee receipt dated 05/09/2016
Ext.P2:- Receipt from Zephyr dated 05/09/2016
Ext.P3:- Notice copy dated 14/11/2016
Ext.P4:- Postal receipt copy dated 16/11/2016
Ext.P5:- Acknowledgment card
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim: Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
