ORDER

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. By this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. Present complainant has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in services against the failure of the Opposite Party to refund the fees paid by complainant to Opposite Parties on behalf of her husband.  
3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a meritorious student and she is preparing for UPSC examination. During her preparation the complainant used the online App of O.P. No. 1 "UNACADEMY" for different purposes especially for weekly (Sunday) test.
4. That the complainant further states that in June 2021 the O.P.1 approached the complainant through a counsellor name Ankit Singh on telephone call. In their first conversation the complainant informed the respondent that this is her last attempt and the next Examination  was to be held in October 2021. The complainant sought a guide /. Mentor who would help her to improve her preparation. The official of OP 1 offered the complainant ICONIC SUBSCRIPTION in UNACADEMY which provide a mentor who would work on her weak points and would help her to improve her preparation.
5. It is stated by the complainant that In ICONIC SUBSCRIPTION OP 1 also provide extra curriculum like daily based test and evaluation, which was the actual need of the complainant, when only approximately three months have been left for her exam. 
6. That the complainant further stated that she was convinced by OP1 to opt for the ICONIC SUBSCRIPTION of OP1 for a total sum of Rs. 68,647/- as consideration amount.
7. That the complainant further stated that the OP1 assured her that she could pay the fees through instalment and that the finance for the same would be arranged by OP1 through O.P.3. That the complainant agreed to pay the fees through instalment and after that O.P. 3 approached the complainant. After filing all kinds of necessary documents monthly instalment was fixed as Rs. 5,721/- for 12 months.
8. It is further sated by the complainant that on 19th July 2021 the she took the ICONIC SUBSCRIPTION, for a sum of Rs. 68,647/- from OP1.
9. It is further sated by the complainant that after taking the subscription, she realised that the O.P 1, Unacademy, was unable to provide the guidance which was actually needed by her.  
10. It is further sated by the complainant that after having another conversation, OP1 stated that the Unacademy doesn't provide these kind of mentorship, when the complainant joined the institute and paid the fees.
11. It is further sated by the complainant that she was shocked after joining the institute of O.P.1 and she contacted some Ankit Singh of OP1 and stated to her that Unacedemy wasn't able to provide the mentorship which was actually needed.
12. It is further sated by the complainant that she asked the OP1 to refund the amount which was paid and stop the subscription. However the respondent stated that the Unacademy has Zero Refund Policy which was not told before, before joining the institute.
13. It is further sated by the complainant that she never got any guidance from the Unacedemy, which was highly unexpected and unprofessional. That the complainant has tried to contact through call, E-mail (copies attached) and OP 1 App chat, Unacademy Head,many times about the said issues, however, every time all the above ignored the complainant.
14. It is further sated by the complainant that she suffered a lot of mental harassment, stress and agonies owing to UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE by O.P.s, in collusion with each other.
15. It is further sated by the complainant that she sent legal notice to O.P.1 dated 12.11.2021 demanding refund of Rs. 28,605/-along with compensation of Rs 10,000/-.
16. It is further sated by the complainant that even after assuring the complainant that money will be refunded by O.P.1, O.P. 3 kept taking the money from the complainant through the salary account of her husband and till date complainant was forcibly made to pay Rs.37,571/- (Document attached). Although she informed O.P.3 through mail and call that O.P.1 was not provided the service which they promised.
17. That the complainant has alleged the UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES by all O.P.s, and it was her last attempt, the complainant suffered from depression and had to take treatment from AIIMS.
18. Therefore the complainant has approached before us praying for a direction to OPs for refund of a sum of Rs. 37,571/- with cost, interest and compensation.
19. In order to admit the present complaint we have to decide whether present complaint is admissible / maintainable as per the provision of C.P. Act. 2019. 
20. A preliminary issue in the present complaint arises before us is whether as per the facts narrated and alleged by the complainant there is a consumer dispute in the present complaint.
21. We have carefully examined the contentions raised by complainant in his complaint and heard the complainant on the aspect of admissibility of present complaint.
22. As per the averments made in the complaint it is transpired that complainant sought mentorship services to enhance her knowledge and skills through the App of the OP1 named UNACADEMY for a sum of Rs. 68,647/- as consideration amount which was financed by OP3 to the husband of complainant and same was paid to OP1.
23. We are unable to find allegation of deficiency in services by OPs in the averments made by the complainant in her complaint mentioned as below:-

that after taking the subscription, complainant realised that the O.P 1, Unacademy, was unable to provide the guidance which was actually needed by her.

24. As per the averments made in the complaint by the complainant apparently there is no allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OPs.  The complainant has sought refund of amount paid to OP1 through OP3 on the ground that she didn’t find services of OP suitable in her condition. Therefore in our considered opinion present allegations does not give rise to a consumer dispute as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Though the demand of the complainant appears to be a demand for a mere refund on the ground of unsuitability of the service provided by the complainant which could be sought before any other tribunal / court but not before agencies established under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as same does not give rise to a consumer dispute.  In the present case apparently there is no allegation of deficiency in services or unfair trade practices as defined under C.P. Act. 2019 made by the complainant.
25. As the complaint filed by the complainant in our considered view does not pertain to a consumer dispute therefore same is not maintainable before us under the C.P. Act, 2019 and therefore same is rejected at the stage of admission itself.

Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 19.07.2023.

(SANJAY KUMAR )                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER                       MEMBER