State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maya Academy And Advanced Cinematics vs Harpreet Singh S/O Shri Jaswinder Singh on 9 February, 2012
nd
Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR -A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. of
Date of institution : 4.1.2012
Date of Decision : 9.2.2012
1. Maya Academy and Advanced Cinematics, Division of Maya Entertainment
Limited, SCO 83, Sector-5, Near Vatika Behind Shalimar Mall, Panchkula through
its Franchiser Mr. Nitin Gupta.
2. MAAC Carniwal Complex, Near Elinte Areade, 3rd Floor, Mall Road,
Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Harpreet Singh S/o Shri Jaswinder Singh, aged about 21 years, resident of
851, Nirankari Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana.
2. Maya Academy and Advanced Cinematics, Division of Maya Entertainment
Limited, Head Office: 23, Shah Industrial Estate, Veena Desai Road, Andheri West,
Mumbai - 400 053 through its General Manager.
3. Aptech Limited, Aptech House, A-65, MIDC MAROL, Andheri East, Mumbai
- 400 093 through its Managing Director.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated . . of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 2
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Sanjay Judge, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by opposite parties No. 1 and 4 i.e. Maya Academy and Advanced Cinematics (hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 9.11.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of respondent No.1/complainant (hereinafter called 'respondent No.1') was allowed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was a student of appellant No. 2-institute at Ludhiana in the year 2010-11 by informing the appellants that he will do the business in the evening and will join the Academy in the morning at Ludhiana. Appellants accepted his request and he was also allowed to deposit the fee of Rs. 2,12,000/- in installments and out of which he deposited Rs. 65,910/- with appellant No.2. Appellant No. 2 closed its institution at Ludhiana inspite of the fact that respondent no. 1 had already deposited Rs. 65,910/- with appellant No.2. When respondent No. 1 tried to contact the appellants, he came to know that the appellants had shifted its branch from Ludhiana to Panchkula without any information to the students. After some time, respondent No. 1 had contacted Sh. Kaushik Gupta, Organizer of the appellants, who informed him that the Academy was shifted from Ludhiana to Panchkula and asked him either to join the academy at Panchkula or to take the refund of fee deposited by him. Before taking the admission in the course, respondent No. 1 informed First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 3 the appellants that he was doing the business at Ludhiana and only on their assurance respondent No. 1 had to join the course in the academy at Ludhiana. Respondent No. 1 was not in a position to join the course at Panchkula due to his business. Respondent No. 1 asked Sh. Kaushik for the refund of the fee which was deposited by him with the appellants, who assured for the refund of the same within 45 days but not refunded as per assurance. Respondent No. 1 again number of times contacted Sh. Kaushik Gupta on his mobile phone No.90230-55556 and also wrote letters and sent e-mails to Sh. Kaushik, with the request to refund the amount but no reply was received from the appellants as well as from respondents No. 2 & 3. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 repeatedly contacted Sh.Nitin Gupta, who is a Franchiser of the said Institution on his mobile and requested him for the refund of fee, but fee was not refunded as per his assurance. Thereafter, notice dated 1.3.2011 was served upon the appellants and respondents No. 2 & 3 but no reply was received. On 10.3.2011, legal notice was served, which was responded by appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 vide reply dated 22.3.2011 and offered only Rs.28,000/- against Rs. 65,910/-, which was charged by the appellants from respondent No. 1. Hence, the present complaint was filed with the prayer for direction to the appellants as well as respondents No. 2 & 3 to refund Rs.65,910/-, Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of mental tension and agony, Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of one full academic year, and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, complaint was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties; respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to file the complaint, District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits, it was denied that respondent No. 1 had First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 4 informed the appellants that he will be allowed to join the course in the morning as he was doing the business in the evening. The course which was joined by respondent No. 1 required regular attendance and practical experience as the same was pertaining to training of animation. The payment of fee details deposited in the institution was not denied. It was admitted that initially the Branch office was running and students were enrolled at Ludhiana but in view of the viability of the Centre and infrastructure costs etc., all the students were informed regarding the shifting of the institution from Ludhiana to Panchkula, where better facilities of boarding and lodging including free stay was to be provided and the offer was accepted by number of students. Students who expressed unwillingness, their fee was refunded as per conditions of the Centre. The refund of Rs. 28,000/- out of fee paid by respondent No. 1, was also offered to respondent No. 1 as per the calculation and as per the usage of the services of the appellant for which he was entitled but he had refused to accept the same. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 had concealed the true facts with ulterior motive and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 before the District Forum, as such, they were proceeded against ex- parte.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint by directing the appellants as well as respondents No. 2 & 3 to make the refund of Rs. 65,910/- to respondent No. 1 as course fee deposited by him; after deducting any payment, if received by him. If failed to pay the same within 45 days, pay the same with interest @ 9% per annum from the date First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 5 of lodging the complaint till realization. Rs. 5,000/- were awarded as compensation and litigation expenses.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is unilateral, arbitrary, baseless, patently wrong and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be set-aside on the grounds mentioned in the appeal.
9. It is admitted case of both the parties that the appellants were running institution for the training of professional courses like photoshop, sketching and other curriculum etc. at Ludhiana. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 1 had taken the admission in the said institution for the year 2010-11 for the course pertaining to training of Animation and paid Rs. 65,910/- as fee on different dates out of total fee of Rs. 2,12,000/- of the course.
10. The appellants had shifted the institution from Ludhiana to Panchkula. The version of the appellants is that all the students were informed regarding the shifting of the same due to viability of the centre and infrastructure costs etc. and the students were offered better facility of boarding and lodging including free stay and number of students accepted the offer of the appellants and who, expressed their unwillingness; their fee was refunded as per the terms and conditions of the institution. The refund of Rs. 28,000/- was also offered to respondent No. 1 out of Rs. 65,910/- deposited by respondent No. 1 with the appellants but he did not accept the offer of the appellants.
First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 6
11. During the arguments, the counsel for the appellants produced copy of Students' Rule Book and in the same, sub-rule (iv) of Rule (F) relates to transfers of the students, which is reproduced as under:-
"iv) Under exceptional circumstances, the management may transfer students to any other centre in the vicinity."
12. The appellants had neither pleaded in the reply nor produced any evidence in the District Forum that what were exceptional circumstances under which the institute was needed to be shifted from Ludhiana to Panchkula. Even it is also not pleaded in the reply of the complaint that any such, rule book was provided to the students by the appellants at the time of admission and it is only an after thought version of the appellant to save his skin, which is not acceptable at this stage.
13. The appellants neither in reply nor in the grounds of appeal have mentioned the facilities which were not available at Ludhiana and were available at Panchkula. The version of the appellants for the shifting of the institution from Ludhiana to Panchkula is based on only surmises and conjectures. It was not possible for the students to shift from Ludhiana to Panchkula for further study.
14. Even neither any criteria was given in the reply of the complaint nor in the grounds of appeal for the calculation of the refund of fees to the students rather it was left to the sweet will of the appellants.
15. Due to the shifting of the institution from Ludhiana to Panchkula, respondent No. 1 had lost his one academic/professional year without any fault on his part. But the District Forum had not given any compensation for the same and only directed for the refund of Rs. 65,910/- without any interest with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation costs, if the order is complied by the appellants and respondents No. 2 & 3 within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 7
16. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the appeal of the appellants is meritless and there is no ground for the issuance of the notice to the respondents. As such, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
17. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
18. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
February , . (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member
First Appeal No. 12 of 2012 8