Date of filing:24.11.2020
Date of Disposal:04.03.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF MARCH, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1013/2020
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Sri.Shresha M.S.Kashyap,
S/o M.S.Shreekanth,
Aged about 19 years,
Residing at “Shreenivasa”, 2nd Main,
-
-
Rep by Sri.Rajeswara P.N, Advocate
FIITJEE Limited,
H.S.R.Layout Branch,
No.19, S.S.Plaza,
-
Outer Ring Road,
Bengaluru-560 102,
Rep by its Manager. …… OPPOSITE PARTY-1
FIITJEE Limited,
FIITJEE House,
29-A, Kalu Sarai,
Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110 016,
Rep by its Manager.…… OPPOSITE PARTY-2
Opposite party no.1 & 2 rep by Sri.B.G.Rajshekhar, advocate
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-34 and 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to return to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,65,875/- together with interest from the date of the complaint till repayment at the rate of 18% compounded annually with monthly rest and such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. Initially, the complaint was filed by the parents of the present complainant was minor at that time. Subsequently, after he been attained majority the parents deleted by themselves and substituted by their son(complainant). Even though the opposite parties were represented by the counsel, they did not file version. The opposite party no.2 is the head office of opposite party no.1. The complainant was enrolled as student in opposite party no.1 for one ‘Year Class Room Programm for JEE (advanced)’ in the month of October 2019 and he had paid in all a sum of Rs.1,65,875/- to the opposite party no.1 towards the class as per their free structure and instructions. Further, due to out-break of Covid-19, the complainant was not able to shift his residence from Tumkur to Bengaluru. He was not able to attend the class through online as the complainant found extremely difficult to understand the teaching conducted through online classes. Further, the complainant had attended only two classes and decided to quit the programme and had brought to the notice of the opposite parties vide email dt.30.06.2020. Further, through email dt.06.05.2020 the complainant sought for refund of the amount paid. Since, the complainant did not get favourable reply and refund has not been processed the complainant found that the stand taken by the opposite parties in not refunding the fee amounts to unfair trade practice and had filed the present complaint.
3. To prove the case, the complainant PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P5 documents.
4. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.
5. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
compensation as sought ?
iii) What order ?
6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In negative
Point No.2 : In negative
Point No.3 : In negative
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
7.POINT NO.1 to 3:- In order to avoid the repetition of facts and these points are interlinked, those are taken together for discussion. The complainant (PW1) has reiterated the fact stated in the complaint, in the affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief. According to him, in all, his parents have paid a sum of Rs.1,65,875/- to opposite parties towards JEE (advanced) in the month of October-2019. Further, the classroom programme was scheduled to commence from 12.04.2020 and due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and it was declared as a Pandemic by the World Health Organization, the classes could not commence from the scheduled date. Hence, the opposite parties had decided to start online classes from 30.04.2020. Further, the complainant being the resident of Tumkur his parents had decided to shift to Bengaluru for complainant’s education and had obtained a rented house near to opposite party no.1 institution. Further, because of the outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic, their plans did not materialize. It has become impossible for them to shift to Bengaluru and on 06.05.2020 it was intimated to the officials of opposite parties. Further, the complainant found extremely difficult to understand the teaching conducted through online classes. Further, the complainant had attended only two classes and decided to quit the programme and intimated the said aspect vide email dt.30.06.2020.
8. It is further contended by the counsel for the complainant that since the complainant felt inability to continue to the programme, sought for refund of the amount paid and when contacted over the phone several times opposite party kept on saying that the refund was under process and it has to be approved by their Head Office in Delhi.
9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that even though the opposite party had informed that the refund was under process, same has not been refunded. Admittedly, the complainant took the class room programme for preparation to appear for neet exam. Further, the parents of the complainant being the resident of Tumkur had decided to shit to Bengaluru and had even rented a house near to opposite party institution. However, because of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic he plants did not materialize. Further, the complainant found extremely difficult to understand the teaching conducted through online classes. Hence, we feel there is no fault on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, deficiency cannot be attributed on the opposite party.
10. Further, as per section 2(42) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contemplate that service does not include the rendering of any service under a contract of personal service. We feel the classes offered by the opposite party to the complainant by way of tuition amounts to personal service. Therefore, the service offered by the opposite party does not come within the meaning of Section-42 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, it cannot be held that there is deficiency of service as contemplated under Section-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Since, there is no fault on the part of the opposite party, it cannot be held that there was unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party as contemplated under Section-2(47) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, we answer these points in negative.
11.POINT NO.4:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 4th day of March, 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainants side:
Sri.Shreesha M.S.Kashyap, the complainant has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainant side:
- Xerox copy of the enrolment report.
- Xerox copy of the pass book.
- Computer downloaded copy of the mail with regard to intimation of dishonor of cheque with Xerox copy of bank pass book.
- Computer downloaded copies of the four email conversation.
- Office copy of the legal notice dt.17.08.2020 with RPAD receipt and acknowledgment and postal confirmation.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
-NIL-
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
