State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aditi Shah vs Bhargav P Chauhan on 30 March, 2021
1
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Appeal No.641 of 2014.
The Director
Ms. Aditi Shah ( TIME INDIA )
Arena Multi Media Aptec Limited
Opp. Navrangpura Telephone Exchange
C. G. Road, Ahmedabad. ... Appellant
Vs.
Bhargav Pravinkumar Chauhan
Plot No. 16/1, Sector 4A
Gandhinagar .. Respondent
Shri K. R. Saxena learned advocate for the appellant
Shri K. N. Shah learned. advocate for the respondent
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10-7--2012 passed by the learned District Forum, Ahmedabad City in Complaint No. 28 of 2008, the appellant original opponent has preferred instant appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in law. The parties will be referred to as per their original nomenclature.
2. Short facts leading to the present appeal are stated as under: It is the case of the complainant that the opponent is a private institution and imparting education in multi media and computer. On reading advertisement, the complainant had approached the respondent and paid Rs. 12,846/ as fees on 22- 6-2006 as first instalment. Due to lac of infrastructure, the class 2 Could not be started till 1-7-2007. On assurance by the Director the complainant paid Rs. 15,908/- though the class could not be started till15-7-2006. Thereafter after lapse of two months, the class started on 17-8-2006. It is further case of the complainant that only one computer, printer, internet and scanner were not provided between five students. After waiting for long time only one faculty was coming for teaching for two hours. The complainant could not make practice due to lac of full facilities. The complainant left the institution. The Director, Ms. Aditi Shah gave oral consent to refund the fees but she has not refunded the fees. The complainant gave notice on 4-6-2007 he she did not give attention to the said notice. By this conduct, the opponent has committed grave deficiency in service and unfair trace practice. The complainant had paid total fees of Rs. 65,682/- Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the aforesaid complaint for recovery of Rs. 74,121/- as compensation and Rs. 2500/- to bus fare from the opponent.
3. After hearing the learned advocates for both sides and considering the contents of the complaint and the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District forum partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and awarded Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% .
4. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned district forum, the appellant/opponent filed present appeal before the State Commission on the grounds stated in the appeal memo.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.R.Sxena for the appellant and Mr. Shah for the opponent.
6. I have gone to the papers and evidence adduced on record. I have gone through the judgment and order of the learned trial forum. It suggests that the opponent has not followed the Guide Lines of the UGC. Therefore, the liability is fixed and award Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. It is not disputed that the 3 complainant had paid fees to the opponent. Eve though the class were not started since long. After lapse of two months the class were not regularized and sufficient facilities were not available in the class. Only one faculty was attending the class for two hours. Thereafter personal practice was to carry out but due to lack of facilities like computer, printer, scanner, MS office Power point etc were not available in the class. There is nothing on record to show a case on behalf of the opponent that there was awaiting time for sufficient students, and due to insufficient students the class was not started. Nowhere it is mentioned in the Broacher of the class. So verbal statement is not acceptable in the eye of law. Further, it is on record that the Evaluation report of the complainant suggests that he was very regular, hard working and all performance is appreciated and was endorsed. Considering this, the learned trial forum came to the conclusion that there was lack of accessories like computer, printer, scanner and there were insufficient facilities in the class and due to that the complainant feels deficiency in service and proper. According to a judgment reported in III (2009) CPJ page 33 (NC) in the case of Sahgal School of Competition Dalvirsinh wherein was held that Guidelines of the UGC were not followed and insufficient teaching time was not given, under such circumstances, the student is entitled to refund of the fees paid by him. Considering this judgment, the learned trial forum has awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9%. Ultimately Rs. 50,000/- as fees of the complainant is awarded. But, we have interaction during the course of arguments, it come out that Rs. 40,000/- on lumps-um basis is t be awarded to the complainant which would meet the end of justice.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be partly allowed with certain modification in the order of the learned trial forum.
48. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we pass following final order.
Order
i) The Appeal is partly allowed .
ii) The judgment and order dated 10-7-2012 passed by the learned
District Forum, Ahmedabad City in Complaint No. 28 of 2008 is confirmed but it is modified and the opponent is ordered and directed to pay lump-sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant.
iii) The appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of C.M.A. NO./ Appeal No., Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
iv) No order as to costs.
v) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of costs
immediately.
Pronounced in open court on 30th March, 2021.
( M. J. Mehta ) Judicial Member BMP 5