District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.121/2021.

 Date of Institution: 04.03.2021.

Date of Order: 09.01.2023.

Pankaj Sharma  son of Shri Rajender Surolia R/o house No. 2329FF, Sector-16, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Vidya Mandir Classes, HUDA Market, Sector-16, Faridabad through its Director/Manager.

2.                Vidya Mandir Classes, 3-4 floor, Plot No. A-7, Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi – 110 035 through its Director/Manager.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Kunal Kant Sharma,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Lalit Kumar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that in the year 2019, the complainant’s son namely Mr. Keshav Sharma took admission with the opposite parties for coaching class for JEE for two years class room courses.  The total fees of rs.2,68,000/- after 50% discount was settled between the opposite parties and the complainant.  The opposite parties allotted roll No. 10F22FB1002 Batch Super X Faridabad Registration No. 10P22FB1002 in the name of the complainant’s son Mr. Keshav Sharma regarding current course Faridabad 10P22-2YP.  The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.Rs.25,000/- on 02.11.2019 with the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued receipt No. HR061920100003137 in the name of Mr. Keshav Sharma.  Coaching classes of JEE were to be started from the month of April, 2020 and as per schedule of the opposite parties the complainant had to deposit the balance payment with the opposite parties.  However the complainant deposited the next payment of Rs.16,300/- with the opposite parties on 13.12.2019 and accordingly the opposite parties issued receipt No. HR061920100003743 in the name of Mr. Keshav Sharma.  Thereafter as per the directions of the opposite parties the complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.33,040/- with the opposite parties and opposite parties issued receipt NO. VMC2020HR00003320 dated 11.03.2020 in the name of Mr. Keshav Sharma.  Thus the complainant deposited total amount of Rs.74,340/- with the opposite parties.  At the time of joining the coaching class the expense of online charges were very low as compared to class room courses. In the last week of March 2020 due to the pandemic disease Covid-19/Corona virus the government of Haryana and Government of India imposed lock down. Mr. Keshav Sharma attended JEE

Coaching Class from April 2020 ato June 2020 but was unable to understand the coaching classes,  Hence, the complainant sent email letter dated 03.07.2020 to the opposite parties thereby intimating the opposite parties that the complainant’s son was not interested to join online classes and requested to refund the deposited amount of Rs.74,340/-.  Thereafter the complainant the letter dated 28.07.2020 to the opposite parties intimating that your online program did not suit to his expectation so he found no further use of these types of online courses by paying such a huge amount.  Thereafter the complainant sent email letter 12.01.2021 to the opposite parties thereby requesting to refund the deposited amount of Rs.74,340/- but the opposite parties sent a reply dated 13.01.2021 through as per company refund policy there was no refund amount.  The complainant contacted the opposite parties telephonically and requested the opposite parties several times for refund deposited amount  but the opposite parties had been dilly delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally on 19.01.2021 the opposite parties  had clearly refused to refund the said amount to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 19.01.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                refund the deposited amount of Rs.74,340/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit of the said amount till upto date..

 b)                pay Rs1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite parties  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the present complaint cannot be entertained under Consumer Protection Act,

1986 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the  matter titled “P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.” (CPC 2012 (3) 615 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that education is not a commodity Education institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, matter of admission, fee etc. thee cannot be entertained by the Consumer Protection act, 1986.  The complainant had concealed material facts from the Hon’ble Court in as much as the complainant had not disclosed the fact that the son of the complainant was given admissions for the preparation of IIT JEE not for CBSE or  School level course that the complainant consented to the refund policy, that the amount deposited with the answering opposite parties at the time of accepting towards payment of fee installment was inclusive of GST @ 18% that the son of the complainant was given all the study materials for complete course and that the complainant accepted the terms & conditions and refund policy of the answering opposite parties at the time of accepting the offer of admission.  Had the complainant not accepted the said refund policy his son’s admission would not have been confirmed by the opposite parties.  Opposite partied had followed all the protocols as per government norms during covid and also worked very hard to cater all the student’s need during covid.  Shifting the classes from offline to online was not respondents or anyone else choice it was universally accepted by educational institutes, schools etc. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against

opposite parties– Vidyamandir Classes with the prayer to: a)  refund the deposited amount of Rs.74,340/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit of the said amount till upto date.  b) pay Rs1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c)  pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Pankaj Sharma, Ex.C-1 & 2 – Student  Fee receipts, Ex.C-3 – Registration Fee receipt,, Ex.C-4  to 6- emails, Ex.C-7 – legal notice

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated

and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties affidavit of Shri Prabhat Kumar S/o later M.P.Sinha, GM-HR & Legal, authorized representative of opposite parties.

6.                          In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to refund the deposited amount of Rs.74,340/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit of the said amount till upto date.

7.                          After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that that complainant himself sent the letter dated 28.07.2020 to the opposite parties intimating that “Your online programme does not suit to my expectation so I found no further use of these types of online courses by paying such a huge amount.”  Keeping in view of the above  submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties to pay the 50% of the paid amount to the complainant.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of

mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  09.01.2023                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.