Haryana

Panchkula

CC/606/2019

SUMAN NAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GILL DRIVING SCHOOL. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	606 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	04.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2022

 

 

Suman  Nain, wife of Shri Sampuran Singh, resident of House No.51-C, Sector-14, Housing Board Colony, Panchkula.      

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Gill Driving School SCO No.2, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for OP.                          

 

                                        ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant approached the OP for car driving and she will be provided driving of 132 KM i.e. 6-7 Km per day  and the charges was disclosed by OP as Rs.2800/-. She agreed to join the OP’s driving school and paid an amount of Rs.2800/- as fee of the said course vide receipt no.243 dated 20.06.2018. On the same day i.e.20.06.2018, the complainant was provided with the driving class for 6-7 KM. Thereafter, the driver/trainer deputed by the OP name Sunil had only come for 4/5 days and after that did not turn up when the complainant contacted the said trainer, he put the lame excuses relating to time issues. After that, she contacted the OP telephonically and requested to provide another trainer but no one come to provide car driving training to the complainant. Even thereafter, the complainant time and again contacted in this regard but of no use. The complainant has sent a legal notice to OP on 15.10.2019 through her legal advisor but no reply was given by the OP.  Due to the above said act and conduct on the part of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony, financial loss and harassment; hence, the present complaint.  

2.             Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; no locus standi; non-joinder; no jurisdiction and concealed the true material facts. On merits, it is stated that the driving school of OP provide training for learning car driving 132 kilometers 6 to 7 kilometers per day and charges for the same Rs.2800/- for one month only. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant comes for the training not on regular basis and the  fees of Rs.2,800/- is valid for one month only and complainant takes the 19 days training of 97 kilometers and after that she never came for the training, which is clearly shows from the attendance register. It is also stated that the OP has provided the proper service time to time, but the complainant never came for the training regularly. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP by making a separate statement stated that he does not to tender any document in evidence and close the evidence.

4.             We have heard the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record available on file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

 5.            The payment of sum of Rs.2,800/-made by the complainant to the OP on 20.06.2018 for availing the driving training of vehicle is not in dispute. The complainant has alleged the deficiency on the part of the OP stating that the trainer, namely, Sh.Sunil Kumar as deputed by the OP to impart the training to the complainant did not come after 4-5 days. The complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that she had requested the OP as well as the said trainer, namely, Sunil Kumar, to provide her the driving training but no heed was paid to her request. It is contended that the legal notice dated 15.10.2019(Annexure C-3) was sent by her counsel which also failed to evoke any positive response from OP; it is prayed that the complaint may be accepted by directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,800/- along with interest @18% per annum and to pay Rs.15,000/-and Rs.6,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigations charges respectively.

6.             The OP has resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in its written statement. During arguments, the learned counsel for OP did not raise any preliminary objections but he refuted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant at her own level did not turn up to avail the driving training. The learned counsel invited our attention towards the copy of attendance register, wherein the complainant has been shown to have taken the driving training for a distance upto 97 kilometers, out of 132KM and thus, it is contended that a training of only 35kilometers was left. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the receipt(Annexure C-1) vide which the amount of Rs.2,800/- was taken from the complainant, was valid for a month only and thus, it is prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being baseless and meritless.

7.             Before going into merits of the case, it is relevant to mention here that the OP has not adduced any evidence in support of its contentions. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions, which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

8.             Now, coming to the receipt dated 20.06.2018(Annexure C-1) it is found that the trainer, namely, Sh.Sunil Kumar having the mobile no.9988228388, was deputed by the OP. No affidavit of said Sh.Sunil Kumar has been placed on record by the OP so as to negate and falsify the contentions of the complainant. Moreover, it is a well known fact that a trainer with a vehicle, usually, visits the residence of the trainee, who has to avail the driving training; therefore, the contentions of the OP that the complainant after availing the training for a distance upto 97 kilometers did not turn up is neither correct nor justified. Further, the copy of attendance register appended with the written statement does not bear the signature of the said Sunil Kumar, trainer or of the complainant and therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. Furthermore, the Annexure C-1 does not contain any such condition that it was valid only for a one month, therefore, we find no force and substance in the contentions of the OP; hence, OP is liable to compensate the complainant for its lapse and deficiency.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.2,800/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,500/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

10.         The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:17.08.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                              

                                             Member