Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/500

Jasdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sorting Hat Technologies Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Govind Puri Adv.

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 500 dated 27.10.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 05.08.2022.

 

Jasdev Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Sh. Balwinder Singh, resident of VPO Nillon Kalan, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana (AADHAR No.5435 9112 5120)                                                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant 

•  

Sorting Hat Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Maruti Infotech Centre, 3^rd Floor, Domlur Kormangala Inner Ring Road, Bangalore-560071, through its Director/Partner/Authorized Officer.                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a subscription for his son Gurshaan Singh from the OP on 15.06.2021 on payment of Rs.1,01,061/-. The OP was to provide coaching for Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) for students of class 10+1 and 10+2.  The OP was offering different course plans i.e. iconic and plus which had different features and charges. The cost of JEE iconic was Rs.1,00,000/-  while that of JEE Plus was Rs.59,990/-. The OP told the complainant that JEE iconic had unique features. On the assurance of the OP, the complainant opted for iconic plan for his son. However, the services provided by the OP were deficient.

2.                It is further alleged that at the time when the plan was taken, the complainant requested the OP to reduce the fee or give some discount but he was told that the rates were fixed and they charged the same amount from all the students. However, later on, the same plan i.e. JEE iconic was available for Rs.85,049/-.

3.                It is further alleged that the OP has not been rendering services which were initially offered under the plan. The complainant was told that there would be parent teacher meeting (PTM) every month whereby they would apprise the parents about the performance of their ward and would also explain the week points of the student and means to improve them but not even a single parent teacher meeting has been held till date. The OP further promised that there would a mentor and study planner who would help the students in preparation, strategy and time management but nothing of the sort happened. It was found that the mentor and study planner were one and the same person and no help was rendered by him. The complainant called upon the OP to provide study plan but the same was also not provided. The complainant was told that there would be unlimited live doubt solving sessions but very few such sessions have been held. In addition to this, the complainant was promised that the test paper review as well as in-depth test analysis with personalized feedback to improve the time management and exam approach would be held but no tests have been taken. In these circumstances, the son of the complainant has wasted his precious time and money. The OP is, thus, guilty of deficient and negligent services. In the end, it has been requested that the complainant be held entitled to refund the subscription amount of Rs.1,01,061/-  along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.

4.                Upon notice, the OP did not turn up to contest the case and was proceeded against exparte.

5.                In exparte evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit EX. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence.

6.                 We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

7.                In the affidavit Ex. CA, the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated. In the document Ex. C1, the details of the iconic plan have been given. Ex. C2 is the receipt of Rs.1,01,061/- paid towards the subscription of the iconic plan. Ex. C3 is an email sent by the complainant to which reply Ex. C4 was sent by the OP.

8.                From a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof, it emerges that the complainant is claiming that proper services, which were promised at the time of taking the plan, have not been provided by the OP. In this regard, it has been alleged that it was promised that there would be parent teacher meeting every month but no such meeting has been held till date. It has also been alleged that the OP promised that there would be a mentor and study planner who would help the student in study preparation, strategy and time management but now the complainant was told that mentor and study planner are one and the same person and no help is being rendered by him. OP has not provided any study plan though demanded by the complainant. It was promised that unlimited live doubt solving sessions would be held but only limited number of such sessions are being held and in addition to this, test paper review and in-depth test analysis has also not been done. The aforesaid allegations may appear to be slightly vague in nature. In addition to this, the complainant has not examined his son as a witness who could have better stated as to on what account, the coaching programme being conducted by the OP was not up to the mark or was deficient. The complainant seems to be aggrieved by the fact that he was made to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,061/- for the Iconic plan on 15.06.2021 whereas after a few days, the price was reduced to Rs.85,000/- as admitted by the OP in its reply Ex. C4 in response to the email Ex. C3 sent by the complainant. In the reply, the OP has stated that when the complainant took subscription, it was the best price of the day. In our considered view reducing the price within just 14 days from Rs.1,01,061/- to Rs.85,000/- is not a fair deal on the part of the OP. Besides, the complainant has not been satisfied with the services being rendered by the OP. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper, if the OP is made to refund Rs.15,000/- charged extra from the complainant along with a composite costs and compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OP to refund Rs.15,000/- charged extra from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OP Bank is further made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Jasdev Singh Vs Sorting Hat Technologies                              CC/21/500 

Present:       Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OP to refund Rs.15,000/- charged extra from the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OP Bank is further made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.