State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Academy For Photographic Excellance & ... vs Pranav Praveer on 8 July, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.07.2016 First Appeal- 890/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 08.07.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 88/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VII), Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi) Academy for Photographic Excellence, 60, Basant Lok, Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. The President, Management Board, Academy for Photographic Excellence, 60, Basant Lok, Community Centre, Priya Cinema Complex, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Versus Shri Pranav Praveer, S/o Shri Sachida Nand Lal, R/o Sri Ram Nagar, PO. MIT Muzaffarpur, Bihar - 842 003. ....Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") wherein challenge is made to order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VII), Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi (in short, "the District Forum") in CC No.88/2010. The relevant facts are as under:
The respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that on 02.01.2007 he had taken admission in one year Diploma Programme in Professional Photography with appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum. It was alleged that the brochure issued by the appellant/OP was alluring and seemed promising in the context of professional photography training. It was alleged that in bonafide and good faith, respondent/complainant accepted the information of appellant/OP as authentic and took admission in the one year Diploma Programme in Professional Photography. As per the terms governing the admission, the respondent/complainant had paid Rs.1,05,000/- of the total course fee of Rs.1,20,000/- in four installments. The syllabus of the course was designed in four Modules of three months each in the following manner:
Basic Module Advanced Module Introduction to Genres of Photography Specialization:
Strategic Management: Curation; Internship; Portfolio; Exhibition Specialization in your chosen field - Advertising, Fashion, Product & Commercial, Photojournalism and Travel & Nature.
According to prescribed syllabus, the students were to be taught different topics in each Modules, the details of which are as under:
In Module (i): The Basics of Photography i.e. How to properly expose film; How to develop that film and to make beautiful exhibition quality black and white prints etc. etc. The Topics those were to be covered in this Module included: The Camera, Camera Controls, Lenses, Film and Printing.
In Module (ii): Advanced Photography and Introduction to Colour and Digital.
The Course Goals in this Module were: To understand Colour; To work on Shapes, forms and Textures; To understand colour film and Processing; To begin to become proficient at using Adobe PhotoshopCS2; etc. etc. In Module (iii): Introduction to Geners of Photography.
The Course contents in this Module as per syllabus were:
Architecture; Photojournalism; Advertising; Product & Commercial; Fashion; Black & White, Nature & Wildlife and Travel.
And, in Module (iv): Strategic Management: Project; Curation; Portfolio; Exhibition; Internship.
It was alleged that the Module (iv) of Strategic Management had significant importance in the course because the same aimed at making the student(s) proficient in the Industry practices. It also aimed at making the student(s) pursue his chosen specialization. It was alleged that in order to complete the project work, a student had to present 15 exhibition quality prints in this module. The aforesaid was to be followed up with an Internship Programme with the leading photographers, trade journals or Industry houses. It was alleged that Module (iv) was the most important module of the programme/course and the students were advised to take it seriously, as the same puts the professional(s) in Photography. The course was to culminate in an Exhibition of work of students. It was alleged that the appellant/OP did not complete the aforesaid modules. It was alleged that the course of only Module (i) was completed Module (ii) was partially completed. So far as Modules (iii) and (iv) were concerned, from the Module (iii) only one topic i.e. "Photojournalism/Documentary Photography" was covered by appellant/OP whereas the Module (iv) which was most important module of the course remained untouched despite extension by three more months of one year course period. It was alleged that even the faculties kept changing without prior notice. The requisite syllabus was never followed. It was alleged that the time was the essence of the contract as the course in question was a professional one meant a lot to the respondent/complainant in terms of her career making. It was alleged that the course had remained incomplete. The respondent/complainant suffered both in terms of money and also in her valuable time. The appellant/OP was liable to pay compensation on account of financial loss and also in terms of loss of valuable time and inconvenience caused to respondent/complainant. A legal notice dated 18.07.2008 was also sent by the respondent/complainant to appellant/OP for refund of entire fee of Rs.1,20,000/- and to pay Rs. 5 lacs as compensation for the agony and mental torture. Finding inaction in the part of appellant/OP, the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum claiming refund of fee of Rs.1,20,000/-. She had also claimed Rs.5 lacs as compensation on account of loss of academic year of her career and for suffering severe mental torture, agony, harassment, inconvenience etc. and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
On getting the notice from the District Forum, appellant/OP contested the same by filing written version wherein the admission of the respondent/complainant with appellant/OP was admitted. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had not paid the entire fee for completion of the course and thus was not entitled to be certified by the appellant/OP. The appellant/OP had taken fee of Rs.1,05,000/- out of the total fee of Rs.1,20,000/- for the course for which respondent/complainant was admitted. It was denied that topics of Modules as were alleged or that the Module (iv) remained incomplete. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant was satisfied with the course as fee was continued to be paid by him. It was alleged that since the respondent/complainant did not pay the complete fee and was irregular in attendance as such the Diploma Certificate was not issued to him. It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on part of appellant/OP. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint to put pressure on the appellant/OP.
The respondent/complainant had filed rejoinder denying the allegations made against him in the written version.
Both the parties had filed evidence by way of affidavits before the District Forum. After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and held the appellant/OP guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund the entire fee of Rs.1,05,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant/OP is an educational institute and the respondent/complainant was the student of the appellant/OP institute. Being an educational institute, the appellant/OP was not providing any kind of consumer service and, therefore, in the matter of admission fee etc., there can't be a question of deficiency in service, as such the matter could not have been entertained by the Ld. District Forum. In support of its contention, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has relied upon the judgment of P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trut & Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22532/2012; Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483; Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159.
On merits it is contended that the Ld. District Forum was wrong in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP. It is contended that all the Modules were completed by the appellant/OP. It is contended that the finding given by the Ld. District Forum are not based on the evidence of record. It is further contended that assuming there had been any issue with regard to the completion of the course the same ought to have been raised during the course of the training period. It is contended that all the workshops, conferences, exhibitions etc. were organized by the appellant/OP and the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the same while passing the impugned order.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the appellant/OP academy is neither a university nor a college affiliated to any university as such appellant/OP cannot be equated with a university as is contended. It is contended that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is contended that appellant/OP was providing a service to the respondent/complainant in lieu of fee paid and as such, respondent/complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is further contended that a well reasoned order has been passed by the Ld. District Forum as such appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the submissions made by the parties and perused the material on record.
The contention that the appellant/OP being an educational institution was not providing any kind of consumer service to the respondent/complainant as such consumer complaint could not have been entertained by the Ld. District Forum, has been considered. The admission taken by the respondent/complainant with the appellant/OP for a course in Photography is not denied by appellant/OP. Photography is not an education. It is too remote to take it as an education. Further, appellant/OP is not regularized by any statute nor is getting any aid of the Govt. There is also nothing on record to show that appellant/OP is not earning any profit. In these circumstances, the judgment relied upon are of no help to it. The contention raised has no force and is rejected.
It is admitted position that respondent/complainant took admission with appellant/OP for one year Diploma Programme in Professional Photography on 02.01.2007. It is also admitted position that Rs.1,05,000/- out of total fee of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid in installments. It is also admitted position that the course was divided into four Modules, details of which have been given above. The respondent/complainant on affidavit has stated that Module (i) was completed. Module (ii) was partially completed. In Module (iii) only one topic was covered and Module (iv) which was most important remained untouched. He has further stated in the affidavit that despite repeated requests and reminder the appellant/OP did not complete the professional course of photography. Respondent/complainant has also stated in the affidavit that he was regular in attending the classes. He has further stated that since it was a professional course, he had suffered loss by not completing the same due to lapse on the part of the appellant/OP. The appellant/OP has not placed on record any material to show that the four Modules were completed. Few appreciation letters alleged to have been written by students are placed on record where in praises are made for the appellant/OP in the manner of conducting the course. The letters are examined. All the letters are undated. No address of alleged students having written the letter is also placed on record. In these circumstances the letters relied upon by appellant/OP are of no help to it. There is no whisper in the affidavit filed by appellant/OP as to when the course was completed. The burden was on the appellant/OP to prove the same. The affidavit is also silent about the attendance of respondent/complainant. The appellant/OP has also failed to file the attendance record to prove that the respondent/complainant was irregular in attending the classes as has been alleged. The necessary details in this regard are also not given either in written statement or in the evidence. There is nothing on record to show that respondent/complainant was ever intimated that he was irregular in attendance and was not being given the requisite certificate as has been alleged. In these circumstances, no error is seen in the order of the Ld. District Forum whereby it has been held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP and order has been made for refund of fee of Rs.1,05,000/-. The findings are based on evidence of record. Even a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- have been imposed towards compensation and litigation cost. No case for interference is made out.
Appeal stands dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. The record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member