DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.330 of 22-07-2010 Decided on 04-02-2011
Deepak Kumar, aged about 19 years, son of Amrit Pal son of Om Parkash, resident of Gali Tej Ram Zarde Wali, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda thorough his special attorney Amrit Pal son of Om Parkash, resident of Gali Tej Ram Zarde Wali, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Tara College of Information Technology (Tara Computer Centre) Gali Geeta Bhawan Wali, near Dr. Jagdish resident of Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. Chairman Rashtriya Saksharta Mission I.T. Programme, SS Tower 402/71, Radio Colony, Main Road, Dhirpur near Kali Mandir D-9, Delhi-110009.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Naveen Goyal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.P.Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 deleted.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by father of the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite party No.1 is running business under the name and style of M/s Tara Computer Centre and it advertised in the city as well as in the nearby surrounding areas in the month of April, 2009 that it is affiliated with the opposite party No.2. The complainant believing the said advertisement of the opposite party No.1, took the admission for the course of BPA (Basic Programming Application) on 05.05.2009. As per prospectus, it was mentioned therein that the said course would be completed in four trimester and fee for full course is Rs.1,915/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance out of Rs.1,915/- vide receipt dated 05.05.2009. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that the balance of Rs.915/- would be charged in the mid of the course. The opposite party No.1 gave two books out of four books exclusively published by the opposite party No.2. The complainant attended the classes for 40-45 days in the premises of the opposite party No.1 but in these days, the opposite party No.1 not taught according to the said course. After about 45 days, the principal of the opposite party No.1 told the complainant on phone not to attend the Institute and to leave the Institute. When, the complainant visited to know about the matter, the opposite party No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant asked the opposite party No.1 to refund the fee deposited by him but the opposite party No.1 refused to do so. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party No.2 through registered post on 11.07.2009. The opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 13.07.2009 directed the opposite party No.1 to look into the matter seriously. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 but nothing was done into the matter by the opposite party No.1. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite party No.1 has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant attended the classes at opposite party No.1 for more than two months. During this period, he did not behave properly and used to disturb & tease girl students of his class. Due to this reason and on the complaint of the girl students, the Instructor of the class changed time of the complainant's class but the complainant insisted to attend the class at the same time with girl students. When he was not permitted to do so, he stopped coming to attend the class. The opposite party No.1 talked to him on phone and sent a message through other students, asking the complainant to attend class at new time so that he may be able to give I Trimester exam but the complainant remained adamant on his earlier attitude. The opposite party No.1 informed the opposite party No.2 regarding the attitude and absence of the complainant from the Computer Centre. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the matter regarding refund of fee is directly related to the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 has no authority about it. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submission submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant sought admission for the course of BPA (Basic Programming Application) on 05.05.2009. As mentioned in the prospectus, the said course was of four trimesters and the fee for full course is Rs.1,915/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- in advance out of Rs.1,915/- vide receipt No. nil dated 05.05.2009. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.915/- in mid of the course. Two books out of four books were provided to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 published by the opposite party No.2. The complainant had attended the classes for 40-45 days and during this period, the opposite party No.1 was not taught according to the course and wasted the time of the complainant in typing which was not part of the course. After about 45 days, the principal of the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant not to attend the classes and to leave the Institute. On personally inquiring about the matter, the opposite party No.1 failed to give any satisfactory reply and refused to allow him to complete the course. The opposite party No.1 had also refused to refund the fees deposited by the complainant. The matter was informed to the opposite party No.2, the representation through registered post dated 11.07.2009 was also sent to the opposite party No.2. Vide letter dated 13.07.2009, the opposite party No.2 directed the opposite party No.1 to look into the matter seriously and to report the opposite party No.2. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the Rashtriya Saksharta Mission I.T. programme is a Trust established for imparting computer education to the needy students free of costs, for welfare, betterment, well being, future prospectus of ambitious and talented students with sole object of making them self dependent. The opposite party No.1 is a Franchisee of RSMIT (Rashtriya Saksharta Mission I.T.) and act as its representative to impart computer/IT education to needy students in adherence to the aims and objects of RSMIT. The cost of the course has been fixed by RSMIT as Rs.1,915/- per student. Out of this, RSMIT charges Rs.615/- for student kit including one Trimester Book, II Trimester book, student I-Card, Prospectus and bag. RSMIT gives Rs.1,300/- as grant per student per year to the opposite party No.1. Thus, the opposite party No.1 did not charge any amount from the complainant for the service provided by it. Therefore, the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party No.1. The complainant attended the classes at opposite party No.1 for more than two months and during this period, he did not behave properly and used to disturb and tease girl students of his class. On the complaint of the girl students, the Instructor of the class changed the time of the complainant's class but the complainant insisted to attend the class at the same time with girl students. When he was not permitted, he stopped coming to attend the class and new time was given to the complainant to attend the class, so that, he may be able to appear in first Trimester exam but the complainant remained adamant on his earlier attitude and threatened the opposite party No.1 to file case against the opposite parties. The complainant had paid Rs.1,000/- and student kit containing I Trimester book, II Trimester book, student I-Card, Prospectus and bag was to be provided after examination of first Trimester. The opposite party No.1 has denied the allegations that he had attended the class for 40-45 days. The opposite party No.1 had never informed the complainant not to attend the Institute or to leave the Institute. He has attended the class more than two months and during this period, his behavior was not satisfactory. The complainant submitted that he has been stopped by the opposite party No.1 to come to attend the college. The opposite party No.1 has given him call on his phone and told him not to attend the classes. The opposite party No.1 on the other hand submitted that they never stopped the complainant to attend the classes, they have only changed the time of his class as he has been disturbing the girl students. For this, the opposite party No.1 has placed on file the affidavit of two girls i.e. affidavit of Malkiat Kaur Ex.R-3 and affidavit of Dimple Bagga Ex.R-4 in which, they have specifically deposed that the behavior of the Deepak Kumar was not proper towards the students, instructor & other staff members of the college. The said Deepak Kumar used to disturb & tease the girl students of the class. On the complaint of the girl students, the instructor/teacher of the class changed time of Deepak's class. But he insisted to attend the class at the same time with deponents and other girl students. When the said Deepak Kumar was not permitted to do so, he stopped coming to attend the class voluntarily. The College authorities even sent message through other students asking the said Deepak Kumar to attend class at new time. The affidavits of these two girls shows that the version of the opposite party No.1 is correct. The complainant has also placed on file the affidavits of Rakesh Kumar Ex.C-11 a student of Tara College who has also left the course and Satish Kumar Ex.C-12 father of student Rohit Goyal in which, they have deposed that the complainant was a sincere student and having good moral character and never heard for any bad activity of Deepak Kumar from any student or staff. Rakesh Kumar in his affidavit has not deposed that he himself has left the Institute without completing the course which shows, he is still studying in the same Institute and just to give an affidavit to support Deepak Kumar, he has filed this affidavit. Hence, his affidavit cannot be relied upon. With regard to affidavit Ex.C-12, he has not deposed in it that he has ever met the student, Deepak Kumar-complainant, how he can give the affidavit in the support of a person whom he has never met. Hence, this affidavit also cannot be relied upon. The complainant has been given a student kit worth Rs.615/-and has attended the classes for approximately two months.In such circumstances,the fee cannot be refunded by the opposite parties. 7. Moreover, the opposite party No.1 has suffered the statement on 07.10.2010 that he was ready to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as the case was at very initial stage to minimize the litigation. This offer of the opposite party No.1 was not accepted by the complainant, giving such statement does not mean that the opposite party No.1 has accepted its deficiency, this statement was suffered by him just to avoid the litigation which shows that the opposite party No.1 is very much clear in its act and conduct and never stopped the complainant to attend the class at any stage or any time. It was only for the adjustment with girl students, the time of the complainant has been changed and he was never told the complainant to discontinue his class. 8. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 04-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |
