DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2024
Filed on: 06/12/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 477/2021
COMPLAINANT
Gayathri A., D/o. Ajayan V.K., Karunya, BSRRA 29B, Bhavans South Road, Elamakkara P.O., Kochi 682026.
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Shri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC), University of Delhi, North Campus, Maurice Nagar, Delhi 11007.
F I N A L O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had submitted an application including the payment of Rs.2,500/- submitted before the opposite party to appear an entrance examination in connection with the admission of MBA in Global business operations offered by Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi. The complainant had made a payment on 30/01/2021. The payment status was shown as “application submitted successfully, payment pending”. The complainant states that the completion of payment is required for receiving the admit card for appearing the examination. The complainant had repeated the process the next day and submitted another application on 31/01/2021. The complainant state that the payment was made a second time and the payment status was confirmed as paid. Subsequently the complainant had realized that an amount of Rs.2,500/- was deducted twice from the bank account of the father of the complainant. The complainant had requested for repayment of Rs.2,500/- via e-mails and phone calls to the opposite party. The complainant had patiently waited for the reply from the opposite party and also continued to connect via telephone. Almost all contact numbers provided by the opposite party were not functioning. At last on 04/10/2021 the complainant was informed that they were in receipt of the recent e-mail request. A complaint was also registered on the official grievance portal of the College as Complaint No. 0521000010. Meanwhile the examination centre was shifted from Kochi to Chennai and hence the complainant could not attend the examination due to the Covid restrictions at that time. The complainant states that he was unable to appear for the examination eventhough an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been expended by the complainant without receiving any benefit in return. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking the full refund of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party.
- Notice
Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 07/01/2022. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed their version along with 3 documents.
- Version of opposite party
The present complaint is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed since the complaint does not fall under the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the matter of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC (159) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “education is not a commodity thus University can’t be deemed to be a service provider under Consumer Protection Act.”.
In the matter of Manu Solanki & ors. Vs. Vinayak Mission University (2020) CPJ (2010) (NC), while dismissing the Appeal the Hon’ble National Commission held that except for coaching institutions, all other institutions providing education including vocational courses and activities undertaken during the pre-admission and post admission process, as well as the imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra-curricular activities, swimming, sports and other activities are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant did not avail any service from the opposite party. As per the requirement of the application registration procedure, all the candidates were required to submit an application fee of Rs.2,500/- in case of General, OBC & Foreign National Category or Rs.1,500/- in case of SC, ST. CW, EWS and PWBD category through online portal provided at the website of the opposite party. in the present case at College has already refunded the amount to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- as extra payment received from the complainant. In case of insufficiency of candidates the Kochi Centre was withdrawn and the complainant was allotted to Chennai Centre. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- Evidence
The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant along with the complaint which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A7. The complainant did not file a proof affidavit to support his claims against the opposite party. Hence the Commission had issued notice to the complainant on 14/02/2023 and the said notice sent to the complainant seen served on 17/02/2023.
Document No. 1: Payment details to the opposite party
Document No. 2: An e-mail sent to the opposite party on 25/10/2021
Document No. 3: An e-mail sent to the opposite party on 27/11/2021
Document No. 4: Another e-mail sent to the opposite party on 25/10/2021
Document No. 5: An e-mail sent to the opposite party on 27/11/2021 requesting the refund of the payment
Document No. 6: E-mail sent to the complainant from the opposite party’s grievance cell.
Document No. 7: Aadhar card of the complainant and her mother.
Opposite party’s documents
Opposite party filed 3 documents along with the version.
Document No. 1: Copy of payment receipt of refund by the opposite party dated 28/01/2020.
Document No. 2: Copy of notification regarding Terms and Conditions of the examination
Document No. 3: Copy of the admit card of the complainant.
- The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
- If so, reliefs and costs?
Upon review of the records it is noted that the complainant did not file a proof affidavit eventhough 7 documents were submitted along with the complaint. The complainant failed to appear before the Commission or to present any evidence on her behalf. The hearing to present the complainant’s evidence was initially scheduled on 13/09/2022 and then adjourned to 01/11/2022 and then to 06/01/2023. The notice sent to the complainant served. The complainant was absent on the subsequent date of hearing of the case. Due to the lack of interest to attend the hearings no further evidence has been provided by the complainant. The complainant’s repeated absence and failure to submit a proof affidavit or to appear at subsequent hearing demonstrate a lack of interest in pursuing the case.
This complaint is filed as per Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 38(6) every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence.
In a 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 insufficiency 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 party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that it is the complainant who had approached the Commission therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party can’t be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of deficiency in service or negligence of the opposite party. Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Resultantly, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 477/2021
Order Date: 29/07/2024
