DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 14th day of July 2023.
Filed on: 03/12/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N
C.C No. 471/2021
COMPLAINANT
SHIBA P6.132, W/O RIJU R, 4D RAK PRINCETON, MAROTTICHUVAD PO EDAPPALLY, KOCHIN 682 024.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- CHANAKYA IAS ACADEMY, CHANAKYA IAS ACADEMY, KOCHI CENTRE ICMAS, INTERNATIONAL, MASJID ROAD, OPP. KIMS HOSPITAL PATHADIPALAM, EDAPPALLY, KERALA-682021.
- CHANAKYA IAS ACADEMY HEAD OFFICE 15VQ+969, NORTH EXTENSION AREA, RAJENDRA NAGAR, NEW DELHI, DELHI-110060.
- CHANAKYA IAS ACADEMY CORPORATE OFFICE
PALM SPRING PLASA NEXT TO SEC.53-54 RAPID METRO STATION, GURUGRAM-122002.
4. CHANAKYA IAS ACADEMY 124 SCOND FLOOR SATHYANIKETHAN Opp:VENKY COLLEGE Near DHAULA KUAN NEW DELHI 21.
(op 2 to 4 rep. by Adv.Basil Mathew, 403, 4th Floor, Penta Tower, Kaloor, Kochi-17)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, a student of Chanakya IAS Academy in Pathadipalam, Cochin, joined the academy for civil service coaching and paid a total of Rs 157,000 through various bills. After attending three classes, the institution closed due to the pandemic lockdown. Although the government of Kerala permitted the resumption of offline classes, the Cochin branch of the institution has not opened and is unresponsive to phone calls. The complainant was unable to lodge a complaint earlier due to the pandemic situation. The complaint seeks a refund of the amount paid Rs.157,000, compensation of Rs 80,000 for harassment and mental agony, and Rs 50,000 for the cost of litigation.
2) Notice
The commission sent notices to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties’ nos 2 to 4 failed to submit their versions within the statutory period. Consequently, these opposite parties were considered ex-parte. Furthermore, it is mentioned that the notice sent to the first opposite party was not seen served.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed 6 documents along with the complaint.
(Exhibit-A-1): Copy of the Fee receipt 1-bill no 308 (13/11/19) - 30000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-2): Copy of the bill no 69 (06/06/19) - 10000 rupees, bill no 078 (10/06/19) - 50000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-3): Copy of the bill no 235 (18/09/19) - 30000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-4): Copy of the bill no 308 (13/11/19) - 30000 Rupees.
(Exhibit-A-5): Copy of the Identity card (ID card no: KOC197, REGESTER NO:106016)
(Exhibit-A-6): Copy of the screenshot of the complaint mail sent to Chanakya.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complainant has taken legal action to seek compensation for the inadequate service provided by the opposite parties. However, the case is currently on hold until the correct address for the first opposite party is provided. During the commission's session on 20.06.2023, the complainant was absent and did not have any representative present. On 05.05.23, the commission issued a notice to the complainant, to furnish the correct address of the first opposite party. The notice was sent to the complainant and was confirmed as delivered on 13.06.2023, as evidenced by the proof of delivery from the Postal Department. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the complainant has not attended or shown any further interest in proceeding with the case.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4 , this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent...” 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. 5, held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under: - “28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
After careful consideration, it has been determined that the issues do not favor the complainant. The contentions raised by the complainant are deemed to lack merit. Therefore, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 14th day of July 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
(Exhibit-A-1): Copy of the Fee receipt 1-bill no 308 (13/11/19) - 30000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-2): Copy of the bill no 69 (06/06/19) - 10000 rupees, bill no 078 (10/06/19) - 50000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-3): Copy of the bill no 235 (18/09/19) - 30000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-4): Copy of the bill no 308 (13/11/19) - 30000 Rupees.
(Exhibit-A-5): Copy of the Identity card (ID card no: KOC197, REGESTER NO:106016)
(Exhibit-A-6): Copy of the screenshot of the complaint mail sent to Chanakya.
C.C. No.471/2021
Order dated 14.07.2023
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
(Exhibit-A-1). Copy of the Fee receipt 1-bill no 308 (13/11/19)- 30000 rupees.
(Exhibit-A-2). Copy of the bill no 69 (06/06/19)- 10000 rupees bill no 078 (10/06/19)-50000 rupees.
3. Copy of the bill no 235 (18/09/19)-30000 rupees.
4. Copy of the bill no 308(13/11/19)-30000 rupees.
5. Copy of the Identity card (ID card no: KOC197, REGESTER NO:106016).
6. Copy of the Screen shot of complaint mail sent to Copy of the Chanakya on this regard.
