ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainant file a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 alleging deficiency in service seeking direction to OP to refund  a  sum of Rs.95,000/- for subscription fee and also direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant  and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

This is the case of the complainant thatcomplainant purchased a Byju’s subscription for his daughter videreference No.125509158765 on 16.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.95,000/- and the subscription included a Tablet being provided to the learner’s. The complainant submits that at the time of subscription, the OP have informed the complainantthat if he was not satisfied with the product or service of OP, then within 15 days of the receipt of said tablet the subscriber may return the product and avail refund. Accordingly, the complainant was not satisfied with the product and relying upon the assurance of OP the complainant returned the Tablet to the OP and requested for refund, but there was no refund initiated by the OP. The complainant made all his attempts to communicate with the OP and also through email, but no response from the OP. Due to the act of the OP, the complainant got issued legal notice on 10.01.2024 calling upon the OP to refund the amount, but the OP have not responded to the notice or complied the demands made in the complaint. Aggrieved by the act and action of the OP, complainant was forced to initiate the present complaint by seeking relief as prayed in the complaint along with other reliefs.

3. On receipt of notice, OP remained absent and they have been placed ex-parte.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant documents in support of their contention which has been marked as C1 to C4.

5.  Heard arguments of complainant. The matter is reserved for order.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and there by prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :       Partly in Affirmative

Point No.2               :       As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- Despite of service of notice, OP not appeared  before the commission and not chosen to file version to contest the matter.  The Judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which is reported in CPR 2018(1) at Page 325 between Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance V/s Dr.Nishi Gupta, In this case, Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Non-filing of Written version in the complaint which amounts to admission of complaint allegations”. The guidelines of the above ruling is aptly applicable to the case on hand as the OP in this case remained absent and on account of that they are placed ex-parte. In the absence of version and affidavit from their side, the complaint allegations of complainant is to be held as a proved fact. On this point, an inference could be drawn in favour of complainant as against the OP that there is a deficiency in service on the part of    the OP.   

9. The complainant filed chief examination affidavit by            re-iterating the complaint averments as against the OP, which is supported by annexure documents produced by the complainant are marked as C1 to C4. On perusal of Annexure document-C2, it is clear that  the complainant has   paid  a sum of  Rs.95,000/- to OP  on 24.09.2023, Annexure document-C3    which is the email communication issued by the OP for approval of refund dt.14.10.2023, Annexure  document-C4 is the   legal notice issued by  complainant   calling upon the OP to refund the amount paid by the complainant.  On perusal of all these annexure documents, it is crystal clear that  complainant has  paid subscription fee of Rs.95,000/- which includes the Tablet. It is clear that, as per assurance of OP, if the complainant has not satisfied with the product, if the complainant returned the product within 15 days the OP would refund the amount paid by the complainant.  The complainant requested OP personally and by sending email correspondence and also through legal notice, despite of all these efforts the OP have not responded to the communications of the complainant or refunded the amount. It is crystal clear from the above documents, OP has committed negligent and carelessness service to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice by keeping hard earned money of the complainant. When such being the case, the OP is liable to refund the amount  to the complainant along with other  reliefs.   

10. Further, all the allegations as against the OP are proved fact beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that the annexure documents-C1 to C4 which clearly supports entire complaint allegations as against the OP. Under such circumstances, for their wilful, diligent and negligent service, the OP is held liable to refund the amount paid  by the complainant to the OP.

11. Further, in the absence of OP and   not chosen to contest the matter by participating in the proceedings in the complaint is fatal to the case on hand and their absence in the complaint and not filing version and affidavit is a clear admission from the OP side that, whatever the complainant alleges as against OP is to be held as proved fact by relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi referred above.

12. In view of the above judgment and by considering the facts of complaint and by taking note of annexure documents produced and also by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, the Commission has no hesitation to hold that there is clear deficiency which is rendered by the OP during the course of service to the complainant, for which OP is held liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant as subscription fee to the  OP along with other reliefs which is granted in the complaint. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in Partly Affirmative.

13. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant  is allowed in part.
2.  The OP is  directed to  refund a sum of Rs.95,000/- along with interest at 6% from the date of receipt of  payment till entire payment is made to the complainant.
3. OP is directed  to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service  and Rs.10,000/- towards  cost of the proceedings.
4. The OP shall comply this  order within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 28^th June 2024)

RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)         (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

           MEMBER                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri SVV Suneel-who being the complainant.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Nil

Documents produced by the OP: Nil

RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)         (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

           MEMBER                          MEMBER

SKA*