BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 278/2022 Filed on 11/07/2022

ORDER DATED: 29/03/2023

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.  After accepting the notice the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 19/08/2022, the opposite parties were called absent and set ex parte. 
3. The case of the complainant in short is that the 1^st complainant was a 6^th standard student for the academic session 2021-22, studied in Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Senior Secondary School, Koduganoor, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram, during the Covid-19 pandemic situation i.e., from March, 2020 to April, 2022 the whole nation was  under lockdown and educational institutions were also struggled for daylily functioning.  The parents were really very much anxious and worried about their kid’s education during those periods including the 2^nd complainant.  Meanwhile, the 2^nd complainant noticed an advertisement of the 1^st opposite party through news paper and other medium about online tutorial class for school going students.  That while searching about the 1^st opposite party’s online class details in internet, by the middle of June, 2021 the 2^nd complainant got a phone call from the 4^th opposite party, who has claimed himself as the representative of 1^st opposite party and he discussed about the online tuition class details and related matters.  Believing the words of the 4^th opposite party about the 1^st opposite party’s profile and their experienced teaching faculty strength, the 2^nd complaint showed interest in admitting his son to the online tutorial class for 6^th 7^th and 8^th class for the academic periods 2021-2024.  That on 27/06/2021 an amount of Rs. 32,300/- was remitted in advance for class 6, 7 & 8 by the 2^nd complainant through Citi Bank Credit Card No.4564 0701 3582 1000, believing the promise and assurance given by the opposite parties for getting better improvements of his son.  While the online tuition classes were progressing, they realized that certain complex subjects like Mathematics etc. are not taught properly where exact and immediate explanation of doubts were not given to the child.  In case of doubt, the 1^st complainant needs to research  more for the subject from outside sources and the objective of online tuition facilitated form the 1^st opposite party was a total failure.  The 2^nd complainant also noticed that the 1^st opposite party’s faculties are not reading the facial expressions of their students to know whether they are struggling in the subject or not.  The lack of proper encouragement in online tuition also counts to be a major defect in the online tuition class conducted by the 1^st opposite party.  Moreover a face-to-face interaction as promised by the opposite parties in the online tuition was seen absent throughout the class.  Even the faculties were hardly cared about clearing the doubts raised by the 1^st complainant and established their deficiency of service.  That on many occasions, this issue was brought to the attention of the 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd complainant and finally on 02/08/2021 an e-mail complaint was send.  The online tuition for 6^th standard was completed in March, 2022 and thereafter due to the substandard teaching experience, the 2^nd complainant send whatsapp/e-mail request on 13/04/2022, 17/04/2022 and 20/04/2022 to the 1^st opposite party intimating about the discontinuation of class 7 & 8 and also requested for refund of fees for the said classes which was paid in advance.  The 1^st complainant not attended a single session for class 7 till date and the 1^st opposite party gave a deaf ear to the 2^nd complainant’s request and not refunded the fees paid in advance for class 7 & 8.  Hence the complainant’s approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and to redress their grievances.  The opposite parties being declared ex parte there is no written version from the side of the opposite party. 
4. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P11 were marked from the side of the complainant.   Opposite party being set ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.
5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3. Order as to cost?

6. Heard.  Perused records, affidavit and documents.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the 2^nd complainant sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P11 were marked from the side of the complainant.  Ext.P1 is the print out of advertisement published by 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P2 is the 1^st complainant’s profile and other details submitted with 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the print out of the details of online tuition course of the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P4 is the tax invoice issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant’s for Rs.32,300/- dated 27/06/2021.  Ext.P5 is the copy of the email message send by 2^nd complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.P6 series is the copies of email communications and whatsapp messages send by the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P7 is the copy of the email complaint.   Ext.P8 series is the requests for refund made by the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P9 is the print out of the reply send by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.P10 and P11 are the copies of the report card of the 1^st complainant for the academic year 2020-21 academic years 2021-22 respectively in annual school examination.  There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  Ext.P4 shows that the 2^nd complainant has paid Rs.32,300/- to the 1^st opposite party for the online tuition for 1^st complainant.  From the documents produced before this Commission it is evident that the complainants availed the service of the opposite parties by paying consideration.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  Hence we accepted the evidence adduced by the complainant in the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  According to the complainant the 1^st complainant has discontinued the course from the 7^th and 8^th standard and demanded Rs.21,533/- being the advance   course fee paid by the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party through Ext.P4.  The said amount is after deducting the 1 year fee from the total amount of Rs.32,300/- paid by the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party through Ext.P4.  The complainant’s case is that inspite requests and demands made by the complainants, the opposite parties failed to refund the excess tuition fee which was accepted by them as advance at the time of admission.  By swearing an affidavit by the 2^nd complainant as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P11 documents, we find that the complainants have succeeded in establishing their case put forwarded by them against the opposite parties.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties and on the basis of the evidence available before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the same caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainants.  As the mental agony and financial loss was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainants.  In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainants.  

In the result the complaint is allowed.The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,533/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Five Thousand Thirty Three Only) along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 29^th day of March,  2023.

C.C. No. 278/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                              PRESIDENT