Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/328/2023

SHRI CHAITANYA EDUCAATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

GAGANDEEP GOEL

29 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench)

 

Appeal No.	328 of 2023
Date of Institution	05.12.2023
Date of Decision	29.11.2024

 

 

1. Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions, SCO 369-370, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Manager/Director.
2. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.369-70, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Managing Director.

 

      …..Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

Versus

Manoj Kumar Son of Late Sh. Mangat Ram, aged about 38 years, Resident of House No.3266, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.               

   …..Respondent/Complainant

 

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Sh. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate for the appellants (on V.C).

                     Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

              The Applicant/Opposite Parties have filed a Miscellaneous Application bearing No.MA/935/2023 for condoning the delay of 120 days (as per office 87 days) in filing the Appeal.

2.         In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, Civil Appeal No.8183-8184 of 2013 decided 13.09.2013, it has been held that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. Further in another judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.,  Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 decided on 07.04.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Para 18 of the judgment, inter alia, that “…. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim. That being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in this regard.”
3.       For the reasons stated in the application and in view of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the Applicants/Opposite Parties have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period.
4.        In this view of the matter, the Miscellaneous Application aforesaid stands allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5.        Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application bearing No.MA/935/2023 stands disposed of.
6.       This appeal is directed against an order dated 03.07.2023, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.385 of 2020, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be  partly allowed. Accordingly, the same is partly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

1. To refund the remaining proportionate fee of Rs.76,038/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused tot the complainant;
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
   11. This order be complied with by the OPs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.(i) 7 (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.”

 

7. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant had engaged with Opposite Party No.1 to enroll his daughter, Aarshi, for a one-year coaching course that was priced at approximately Rs.1,22,000/-. The complainant paid an initial sum of Rs.18,000/- as per three receipts vide Annexures C-2 to C-4. The complainant made further payments of Rs.51,832/- each on 18.07.2019, and 20.08.2019, as indicated in Annexures C-5 and C-6. This would bring the total amount paid by the complainant up to August 2019 to Rs.1,21,664/-. The daughter attended classes from 01.08.2019 to 06.12.2019. After that, due to her ill-health, she could not attend any further classes. The complainant informed Opposite Party No.1 of this situation and requested a refund, deducting any reasonable charges. The complainant made several attempts to get a refund, including telephonic communication and a formal letter dated 16.03.2020. However, despite repeated requests and visits, Opposite Party No.1 did not respond or process the refund. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
8. In its written version, Opposite Party No.1 argued that the complaint was not maintainable. The answering Opposite Party emphasized that the complainant's daughter voluntarily left the institute after attending classes from 12.07.2019, to 31.12.2019 (totaling 173 days) and did so without any stated reason. The Opposite Party No.1 stated that the fees paid were non-refundable, citing the signed terms and conditions of the course, particularly
   paragraph 17. According to paragraph 17 of the terms and conditions, a refund of 25% of the admission fee is only applicable if the student discontinues the course for a "genuine/acceptable reason" as determined by the management, and this request must be made within three months of joining. Additionally, the refund would be subject to deductions including registration fees, 25% of the admission fee, GST, and any package costs. Further, Opposite Party No.1 denies the remaining allegations, claiming they are false and asserting there was no deficiency of service on their part.
9. Opposite Party No. 2, in its separate written statement, has taken the same objections as Opposite Party No.1, asserting that there was no deficiency in service on their part and requesting the dismissal of the complaint.
10.    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
11. After hearing the Counsels for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, partly allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
12. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
13. We have heard the Counsels for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
14. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
15. The complainant's daughter enrolled in the institute by paying a registration fee of Rs.17,700/- and an application fee of Rs.300/- in July 2019. Additionally, the complainant made two installment payments of Rs.51,832/- each, totaling Rs.1,03,664/-. This brings the total amount paid by the complainant to Rs.1,21,664/-, a fact that the Opposite Parties have not disputed. The complainant’s daughter attended classes at the Opposite Parties’ institute from 12.07.2019 to 31.12.2019, as evidenced by the Students Attendance Register provided by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties stated that the complainant's daughter left the institute voluntarily and without any justification. The medical records (referred to as Annexures C-7 Colly.) indicate that the complainant’s daughter was diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) and jaundice, which prevented her from continuing at the institute. The complainant informed the Opposite Parties both verbally and in writing through a registered letter dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure C-8). This letter communicated the health issues of the daughter and requested a refund of the fees. Despite the complainant's health-related communication and the written request for a refund, the Opposite Parties did not address or grant the refund request. The Opposite Parties were found to have the right to retain only the proportionate fee for the period during which the complainant’s daughter attended the institute. The sum calculated was Rs.45,626/-, which was determined based on Rs.10,139/- per month for four months (from 12.07.2019 to 31.12.2019). The decision concluded that the complainant was entitled to a refund for the remaining months after December 2019, for which the fees were not utilized due to the student's withdrawal. In this case, the Opposite Parties failure to refund the proportionate fees is considered a deficiency in service. The Opposite Parties refusal to process the refund, despite being informed and requested to do so, could be seen as an unfair trade practice. Thus, This Commission does not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
16. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
18.  Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19.  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

29.11.2024           

                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                        [PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                          Sd/-                                                             

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

 

Gp