BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 13^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

O R D E R

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to return the amount which she paid course fee Rs.44,826 with interest of Rs.3,702/-, to pay additional Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and stress and to grant such other reliefs.      

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

  The complainant submits that she thinking of beauty and wellness job, she decided to pursue the Advance Certificate in Beauty Culture course at VLCC for which she paid Rs.9,962/- as an advance and Rs.34,994/- through Bajaj Finserve with additional finance interest of Rs.3,702/- on 31^st December 2019 to OPs.  Further complainant submit that since her organization Fubeus Technology Pvt. Ltd., asked her to travel to USA for her organization’s business purpose on March 2020, she thought she may not able to do the above said course, hence, she communicated same to VLCC Institute through E-mail on 20^th February 2020 about her inability to join the course and requested them to refund the money.  But, she received a reply from VLCC on 25^th February asking about her contact details and migration letter in proof for the refund for which she replied on the same day through E-mail.

Further complainant submits that on 29^th February 2020 VLCC replied stating that they cannot refund the course fee since she had enrolled the course on 30^th December 2020, but visa date was August 2019.  She explained them that USA B1 VISA was obtained long before with 10 years validity and her organization booked the Air ticket for 10^th March.  After her explainaiton, VLCC replied that they cannot refund but they can transfer the course fee someone else if she can bring replacement which is really surprised her and explained difficulty in getting any other person during this time since she from different field altogether and she requested them to transfer to someone from their end.  Further complainant submits that it is taken more than an year, VLCC institute not even replying to my E-mail.  Hence, this complaint.

3. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to OPs duly served, called out absent, placed exparte.

4. Complainant has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit.  She has also produced documents in support of her case and marked Ex.A.1 to A.9.   The complainant has filed her written arguments.

5. Thereafter, counsel for OP filed I.A.1/2021 under Order IX Rule 7 R/w Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 22.07.2021, placing the OP exparte, to enable the Op to contest the matter on merits for which complainant submits no objections. Heard on I.A. and the same is allowed.  OP is permitted to file version.  But OP not filed any version hence, it is taken as not filed.  Heard the learned counsel for complainant.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1.  Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

  6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.2:  As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:  We have briefly stated that in the contents of the complaint.  On receipt of the notice, OP did not appeared.  Hence, placed exparte.  Thereafter, the Op appeared and filed an application to permit to come on record and to file version.  Though the said application was allowed, but, the Op did not file the version.  Hence, it was taken as no objections to the complaint filed by the complainant.
8. To substantiate her case, the complainant filed her affidavit which is nothing but the replica of the contents of the complaint.  As the OP did not chosen to oppose the claim by way of filing version, under such circumstances, non-filing of the version amounts to an admission of the claim of the complainant in the light of the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg wherein it is held that

“Non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint”.

9.  Any how, we place reliance on the available material on record.  The complainant specifically stated in respect of the deficiency of service/unfair trade practice played by the OP.  The complainant thinking of beauty and wellness job, as an alternative job to support her family financially, she decided to pursue the Advance Certificate in Beauty Culture course at Op Institute.  In this context, she had paid Rs.9,962/- as advance and Rs.34,994/- through Bajaj Finserve with additional financial interest of Rs.3,702 (Total Rs.48,658).  Since the said organization Fubeus Technology Pvt. Ltd., ask her to travel to USA for her organization’s business purpose on March 2020, then she thought she may not able to do the above said course hence she communicated the same to the OP showing her disability and requested to refund the money.  It is settled preposition of law that if the service is not provided at any point of time, the amount so far paid by the complainant cannot be retained.  In this context, we place the reliance on the judgement reported in Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2019(1) CPR 647 (NC) in the case of Chief in Charge of M/s.Country Vacations and Anr. vs. Jayanti Mukherjee, wherein it is held that “no amount can be retained by the service provider without offering any service.”    
10. In the light of the decision cited supra, we come to conclusion that the complaint filed by complainant is deserved to be allowed in part holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP much less unfair trade practice.  Hence, Op is liable to refund an amount of Rs.48,658/- (Course fee of Rs.44,826/- + 3,702/- interest) and also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.   Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2:  In the result, we pass the following:

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are allowed in part. 
2. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.48,658/- (Course fee of Rs.44,826/- + Rs.3,702/- interest) with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount of Rs.48,658/- carried interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
3. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 13^th day of September, 2021).

List of documents produced by the complainant marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9 are as follows:-