IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2018
Present: P. Satheesh Chandran Nair, President (I/C)
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan Member
Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No.47/2018 (Filed on 19/03/2018)
Between:
Anju Sebastian,
Kallikattu House,
Nariyanani P.O.
Ponkunnam,
Kottayam, Kerala. .................... Complainant
(Adv. George V. Thomas)
And :
- M/s. Triumphant Institute of Management
Education Private Limited (TIME),
95 B, Park Lane,
Secunderabad – 500003,
Telangana. (Ex-parte)
- The Director,
Triumphant Institute of Management
Education Pvt. Ltd (TIME),
Thekkettil Buildings, Kanjikuzhy,
Kottayam – 686004. . (Ex-parte) ......................Opposite party
O R D E R
Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
The complainant filed the complaint on 19/03/2018 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The averments in brief are as follows;
The complainant is a B.Tech degree holder. She was attracted by an advertisement given by the opposite party for conducting coaching classes for the selection of bank probationary officers at their office. Complainant joined the course of ‘Bank P.O. 2017’ in the Kottayam branch of the opposite parties. She paid Rs.5,000/- on 01/11/2017 and Rs.17,000/- on 15/11/2017 as course fee. Though the client attended the class on 15/11/2017, she was not satisfied with the faculties and the materials provided in the training class. So, she decided to discontinue the studies there and to join for higher studies in Bangalore. Thereupon, the complainant intimated the 2nd opposite party that she wanted to discontinue the classes as she was dissatisfied by the classes taken by the faculties there and was not worthy to her future. She demanded her money back and had given a request for that as per the instruction of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant alleged that, the opposite parties had not refunded the course fee for which she paid with the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. The complainant prayed for the refund of Rs.22,000/- with 12% interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and also the cost of litigation.
II) Notice to opposite parties sent from the Forum. Though it were received by opposite parties 1 and 2, they failed appear before the Forum and file version. Hence, opposite parties 1 and 2 set are ex-parte.
III) Based on the complaint, proof affidavit and the documents on record, the following points arise for consideration;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- As to the reliefs and costs?
IV) The evidence in this case consists of the Proof Affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. A1 to A6 series marked on the part of the complainant.
V) Point No.1
The complainant filed Proof Affidavit in terms of the complaint. The allegation of the complaint is that, she took admission in the opposite party’s institution on 11/11/2017 and remitted Rs.22,000/- with them. As the facilities and faculties were not measured upto the standards, the complainant decided to discontinue her studies there, eventhough she attended one day in the 2nd opposite party institution. The complainant demanded her money back, the opposite parties denied to pay the amount.
We perused the documents on record. Ext.A is a receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party on 01/11/2017 for Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Ext.A2 is also a receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party on 15/11/2017 for Rs.17,000/- to the complainant. Ext.A3 is a copy of request given by the complainant dtd.24/11/2017 to the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is copy of the Lawyers notice dtd.09/11/2018 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A5 are postal receipt 4 in numbers dtd.24/11/2017 and 09/01/2018. Ext.A6 are the acknowledgement cards, 6 in numbers showing the receipt of the same.
As per Ext.A1 and A2, it is seen that the complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- on 01/11/2017 and Rs.17,000/- on 15/11/2017. The complainant sent a letter of request to the opposite parties for the refund of the paid amount. But the opposite parties did not return the money as they promised. Though the complainant attended only a day in the institution, she understood that, the classes were not upto the standards which she expected and also the facilities provided by the opposite parties were dissatisfactory. The opposite parties are reluctant to refund the amount to the complainant. According to the complainant, at the time of joining the 2nd opposite party promised her that, they would refund the course fee if the complainant was not satisfied in the class and would discontinue the couse within a short period. The opposite parties did not care to appear before the Forum and conduct their case. So, we have to trust upon the plea of the complainant. The complainant sent Ext.A4 to the opposite parties stating all these facts. But the opposite parties did not reply to that. So, it stands unchallenged.
It is well settled that, if any amount is due from an individual, it is the duty of the creditor to realize the same from the debtor by resorting to due process of law and that to put them at stake, especially so in the matter of a student. The 2nd opposite party ought not have withheld which was paid by the complainant. The act of the opposite party in not refunding the money deposited with them by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental pain and hardship to the complainant. The Law under the Consumer Protection Act is based on equity. The opposite parties cannot be allowed to take benefit at the cost of a student. The conduct and behaviour of the opposite parties and the expected service that the complainant deserved from the opposite parties was deficient. It is apparent that, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this Forum have no hesitation in finding Point No.1 in favour of the complainant.
VI) Point No.2
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Therefore,
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.22,000/- (Twenty two thousand rupees only) to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by way of compensation for the mental agony and hardships which the complainant had to suffer.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand rupees only) to the complainant as the cost of this litigation.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of Order. If not complied, the directed amount will carry 12% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June. 2018.
Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair, President (I/C) Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 : Receipt dtd. 01/11/17 for Rs.5,000/- issued by 2nd op.
Ext.A2 : Receipt dtd. 15/11/17 for Rs.17,000/- issued by 2nd op.
Ext.A3 : Copy of request given by complainant dtd.24/11/2017
Ext.A4 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.09/01/17 by complainant to op
Ext.A5 : Series of postal receipt (4 nos.)
Ext.A6 : Postal AD cards (4 nos)
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Copy to :
- Anju Sebastian,
Kallikattu House,
Nariyanani P.O.
Ponkunnam,
Kottayam,
- M/s. Triumphant Institute of Management
Education Private Limited (TIME),
95 B, Park Lane,
Secunderabad – 500003,
Telangana
- The Director,
Triumphant Institute of Management
Education Pvt. Ltd (TIME),
Thekkettil Buildings, Kanjikuzhy,
Kottayam – 686004. .
By Order
Senior Superintendent
