IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 258/06 DATED 21-12-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant S.Gayathri, W/o H.N.Nanjundaiah, 3rd Main Road, 1st Phase, Niveditha Nagar, Mysore-560 022.<br /> (INPERSON)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party NIIT, Kuvempunagar Center, 1360, G & H Block, Anikethana Road, Mysore-570 023.<br /> (By Sri.R.R. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 18-09-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 10-10-2006<br /> Date of order : 21-12-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 11 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant S.Gayathri has filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the NIIT of Mysore, alleging that on 23.06.2006 on an invitation given by the opponent, she visited its office, who suggested her the necessity of computerization and computer education to her sons and told her, during summer vacation of that year, they would impart computer education, which would be helpful for he children to do well in the B.E. course and suggested that they give C ++ programming course for which she agreed and on the same day paid Rs.8,100/-, and obtained receipt. But when she contacted the opponent on several occasions, the opponent went on postponing the commencement of course. As a result, her children were not given the computer education, as a result her children and family have suffered mental agony and therefore has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the opponent.<br /> 2. The opponent entered appearance through his advocate and filed objection admitting the receipt of the application of the complainant for giving computer education to her children and stated that the complainant at that time agreeing to all the terms and conditions of the course, gave the application for admission of her children to the computer course and she was also told that they cannot accommodate her children in Sunday batches and Sunday batches are available after few weeks. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to the terms and conditions paid the amount, which was not refundable, but thereafter, the complainant did not turn up for admitting her children to the course despite informing her and thereby denying all other allegations and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. The complainant in support of her allegations has filed affidavit evidence and she has been subject to cross-examination by the counsel appearing for the opponent. The opponent has also filed affidavit evidence. The complainant has filed a copy of the application and receipt for having paid the money to the opponent. <br /> 4. Heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opponent after receiving the deposit amount for imparting computer education to her children has failed to conduct the course and thereby rendered deficiency in it’s service? <br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 and 2 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 1 & 2:- The fact that the complainant on 23.06.2006 after approaching the opponent gave an application to the opponent on the same day for giving computer education to her children and paid Rs.8,100/- to the opponent, which is a non-refundable amount is not in dispute between the parties. But, it is the allegation of the complainant that the opponent who received the amount and promised to give computer education to her children did not do it in the sense commence the course itself despite approaching them and therefore has contended that there is deficiency in service of the opponent and sought for awarding compensation. <br /> 8. The Opponent has denied that he did not commence the course and on the other hand, has contended that despite they approaching the complainant to send her children, she did not evince any interest therefore has stated that there is failure on the part of the complainant. On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant and the opponent there emerges inconsistency in the stand of the complainant as to the real facts of the course that had been agreed and to be given to the children of the complainant. <br /> 9. The complainant in her complaint has alleged that the opponent had agreed to give computer course education to her children during summer vacation of 2006 contending that her son was at that time studying in 3rd semester of B.E., but the opponent did not offer to commence the course. This reveals that complainant had agreed to get computer course to her son, while was studying the 3rd semester B.E. during the summer vacations around June or July 2006. But, the complainant in her affidavit evidence filed in this case contrary to the contention she has taken in the complaint has stated as if the opponent had agreed to give computer education to her son not only during his summer vacation, but also during the entire two semester of 3rd year B.E. degree. Again contrary to it she has in her cross-examination by the opponent counsel has stated as if the opponent had agreed to accommodate her son in Sunday batches, but he did not do so, therefore her son could not take the computer course. In this way, the Complainant has come up with different stories as to the duration of course and as to the period at which this course was offered. The complainant allegations go to show as if the course was only of a short period that could be completed during summer vacation of her son in the year 2006. The complainant in her cross-examination has admitted that her son had only 15 days vacation during the year 2006 as an Engineering student. Therefore, that means the course she opted was of a 15 days course and the opponent did not commence the course during summer vacation of 2006, coming to her affidavit evidence. She has stated as if the opponent had agreed to impart computer education to her son not only during the summer vacation but also during entire two semesters period of 3rd year B.E. As against this in her cross-examination, she has stated that she opted for Sunday batch but the opponent did not accommodate her son during the Sunday batches. <br /> 10. The complainant in her cross-examination by the opponent counsel has admitted that she has admitted her son to computer course, elsewhere and duration of that course is 6 months, which is the same course i.e. C ++. Therefore, it is clear from these facts that the course opted by the complainant to her son, which is C++, is a 6 months course and that being the fact her allegation that the opponent had agreed to give computer education during summer vacation of 2006, as alleged in the complaint cannot be believed and therefore is nothing but falsehood. Coming to her affidavit evidence, she has alleged that computer course was of not only during summer vacation of 2006, but the opponent had also agreed to give education during entire two semester period of 3rd year B.E. degree of her son is further fabricated one. Contrary to that her admission in the cross-examination, that the opponent had agreed to accommodate her son during Sunday batches only is contrary to her own allegations and admissions. In the application she had given to the opponent nowhere, she has stated that she agreed to get education to her son during any of these periods i.e. either in Sunday batches or during summer vacation nothing is indicated in the application. <br /> 11. It is contended by the opponent that the complainant after giving the application did not turn up and therefore they themselves contacted the complainant to send her children to the course. As against this, the complainant in the cross-examination of the counsel for the opponent though stated that she contacted an official of the opponent but stated that she do not remember the name of the official of the opponent, whom she contacted. To a suggestion made by the defence counsel suggesting that the opponent itself contacted her on 25.06.2006 over telephone and enquired her in not having sent her children for education she has not given specific reply but has only given an evading answer stating that she do not remember. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that she has already admitted her son to computer course in another institution, which goes to show that the complainant after giving application to the opponent did not evince any interest, to send her children to computer education to the opponent. The allegation of the opponent that the Complainant without sending her children to the course as agreed upon started demanding repayment of the amount she had paid gain support from the admission of the Complainant and also the circumstances, we have extracted above. Further, the Complainant has admitted in her cross-examination that she after understanding all the terms of the course incorporated in the application and knowing that the amount she was paying to the opponent was not refundable, admitted to had paid the amount and signed the application after accepting all the terms and agreed to the terms of the course. But thereafter it is evident from these facts, the Complainant herself did not choose to send her children to the course with the opponent. The opponent through out in the course of enquiry of this Complaint and even in the course of cross-examination offered to the Complainant that even now and at all time they are ready to impart computer education to her children at any time in any of the batches they choose for which the Complainant declined to do so and on the other hand, insisted upon for awarding compensation against the opponent. We have seen the earnest offer of the opponent to give computer education to the children of the Complainant as agreed upon at the choice of the Complainant, but the Complainant is not inclined to accept the offer of the opponent. It is on going through the entire contentions of both the parties, and the materials before the Forum it emerges that the Complainant who agreed to send her children to the computer course with the opponent paid the amount knowing that it is not refundable gave the application but later on changed her view and admitted her son to the same computer course in some other institution and therefore she is making an attempt to make allegation against the opponent, as if there was a failure on the part of the opponent in not giving education and thereby creating a ground for seeking compensation against the opponent. We therefore find no merits in the complaint and hold that the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in the service of the opponent and she is not entitled for compensation. With the result, we answer both points in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 21st December 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />