| Final Order / Judgement | ORDER 17.05.2024 MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER - In brief facts of the present case are that the daughter of the complainant namely Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani was studying in Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalaya, Vijay Nagar, Delhi-09 in the year 2017-18 in 12th class. The exam was conducted by the OP in the school under the pretext of scholarship and both the daughters of complainant qualified the exam conducted by OP. Thereafter, on repeated intervals complainant received phone calls as well as letters from OP Institution for getting his daughters register in the courses available with the OP. Being influenced by the courses offered by the OP complainant got admitted his both daughters in ‘O’ Level computer courses offered by OP.
- It is alleged by the complainant that he visited the office of the OP where the officials of the OP explained him that the fees for entire course is Rs. 25,000/- and as his daughter has qualified the scholarship exam he would get the rebate of Rs. 10,000/- in the total fees. The officials of OP further offered that if he will pay the entire fee in one go, he will get the benefit of 2200/- as such after negotiation the total fees calculated would be to the tune of Rs. 10,400/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that after further negotiation OP agreed to received Rs. 9,000/- each from the complainant against the admission and accordingly complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 18,000/- vide receipt no. 580 and 581 to OP against the admission of his daughters on 14.04.2018. While issuing the receipt OP has mentioned sum of Rs. 500/- each outstanding . The complainant inquired about the outstanding due and further asked the officials of the OP that he will not deposit the same as the agreed amount is Rs. 18,000/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that due to non payment of Rs. 500/- OP is continuously harassing his daughter in the class room as such on 25.04.2018 he paid the balance amount of Rs. 660/- each to the OPs. It is further alleged by the complainant that again OP started demanding Rs. 1500/- each in the name of examination fee and after some negotiation he finally agreed to pay Rs. 2000/- to OP against the examination fee but OP compel him to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- and as such he paid the examination fee of Rs. 3,000/- to OP on 15.09.2018.
- It is further alleged by the complainant that against the arbitrary demand of OP complainant lodged a complaint with Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance in reply to his complaint he came to know that the institution of OP is not registered with NIELIT for ‘O’ Level computer courses as assured by OP. It is further alleged by the complainant that in his nearby vicinity there are several institutions imparting the knowledge the computer science he prefer to join the institution of OP under the pretext that it is affiliated with NIELIT. It is further alleged that if he is aware of this fact earlier he could not got his daughters admit to the institution of OP. It is alleged by the complainant that the fraudulent activities was carried out in the institution of OP and despite depositing the entire fee the officials of OP could not permit his daughter to sit in the exam and as such he lodged the complaint with Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance resulting in the loss of the future prospect of his daughters.
- It is alleged by the complainant that the present complaint case is the glaring example of unfair trade practice adopted by OPs, hence, the present complaint is filed with the reliefs claim.
- Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that OP Institution is duly registered and accredited by NIELIT for digital literacy programme. It is further stated that the daughter of the complainant name Ms. Hena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani passed the aptitude test with 84% and 78% marks respectively. As both of them have cleared the aptitude test although the total fees for DCAP course was Rs. 25,000/-, they were given the scholarship of 84% and 78% in the course fee and as such the total amount paid by the complainant Rs. 10,400/- but after further negotiation OP charged total sum of Rs. 18000/- from the complainant against the course in question for her two daughters. It is further stated that as per the standard practice and requirement OP charged minimum amount of Rs. 1500/- towards examination fees for both theoretical and practical exams and after negotiation and hot talk complainant agreed to pay the examination fee of Rs. 3000/- on 15.12.2018. It is further stated that the complainant had alleged in his complaint that OP has committed fraud and has falsely claim to be accredited by NIELIT, but the complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence in respect to the same. It is further stated that the OP duly accredited by NIELIT only for digital literacy courses and not for only ‘O’ level courses. It is further stated that OP Institution has never prevented the daughter of the complainant from attending the classes and sitting in the exam, it is the complainant who had prevented his daughters from attending the classes. It is further stated that the present complaint is nothing but an attempt to extort the money from OP under false pretext, hence, same be dismissed with cost.
- Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has placed on record copy of pamphlet pertaining to the advertisement in respect to the affiliation as well as the courses offered by OP, copy of payment receipts, copy of ID card, copy of the complaint dated 28.01.2019 filed with NIELIT as well as the copy of complaint filed with Consumer Redressal Grievance Cell in support of his contention.
- Despite opportunity neither OP appeared nor filed its evidence as such right to file evidence of OP stands closed vide order dated 11.09.2023.
- Complainant filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by the complainant as well as counsel for OP Sh. Vijay Shukla and have perused the record.
- Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint let us peruse the definition of consumer provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- As per section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986: -
"Consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment; (b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing; - Perusal of the record shows that the admission was taken in the OP Institution by Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani, the payments receipts was also issued in the name of Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani respectively by OP.
- Hence, the privity of contract exists between Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani with OP and the complainant has no privity of contract with OP, as such the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant in the present complaint is Sh. Azad Nafe Singh , whereas admission was taken in the OP Institution by Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani, the payments receipts was also issued in the name of Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani respectively by OP. The mental agony as well as harassment, if any, was caused to Ms. Heena Rani and Ms. Gayatri Rani, as such complainant have no Locus Standi to file the present complaint.
- In view of the above provision, we are of the considered opinion that in the present complaint case Sh. Azad Nafe Singh is neither the user nor the beneficiary in the present complaint case, as such have no Locus Standi to file the present complaint. The present complaint is therefore not maintainable before this Commission, hence, dismissed.
- On merit we have gone through the annexure placed on record by the complainant along with complaint. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that he has registered his two daughters for conducting the ‘O’ level course diploma offered by OP but after lodging the complaint with NIELIT he came to know that the OP Institution was not affiliated with NIELIT for ‘O’ Level diploma course. Despite bare version nothing has been placed on record by the complainant that to establish that the OP Institution is offering ‘O’ Level diploma courses. The complainant himself placed on record the pamphlet of OP Institution in which it is clearly mentioned that the OP institute is accredited by NIELIT for Digital Literacy Programme, nowhere it is mentioned in the pamphlet that OP is offering ‘O;’ level diploma coursed as alleged in the complaint.
- In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service against OP due to lack of documentary evidence the present complaint is therefore dismissed, being devoid of merit.
- Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Announced in open Commission on 17.05.2024. SANJAY KUMAR NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDENT MEMBER | |
