State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T. Manoj Kumar vs Flytech Aviation Academy on 8 September, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 1294 of 2009 against C.C. 323/2009, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad Between: T. Manoj Kumar, S/o. Karunakar Student, R/o. 2-10-1739 Chaitanyapuri, Karimnagar. *** Appellant/ Complainant. And Flytech Aviation Academy 1-8-303/33, 3rd & 4th floor Nagam towars, NTR Circle Ministers Road, Secunderabad Rep. by its Executive Director Capt. Mamtha. *** Respondent/ O.P Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. TLK Sharma Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. B. Vijaysen Reddy CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER & SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER THURSDAY, THIS THE EIGTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELVEN ORAL ORDER:
(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that pursuant to the advertisement for Commercial Pilot Licence Training ( CPL) issued by the opposite party organization, he approached, and paid Rs. 500/- on 20.6.2007and paid Rs. 50,000/- towards admission fee. On receipt of letter dt.
22.6.2007 demanding him to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards ground fee, and Rs. 15,24,000/- towards flying charge in all Rs. 16,74,000/- immediately he rushed to the academy and found that no facilities were provided. There were no air crafts. Having not satisfied he sought for refund, however, it did not pay. Thereupon he got issued legal notice on 2.2.2008 for which the opposite party did not give any reply. Therefore he filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- together with costs.
3) The opposite party academy resisted the case. While admitting payment of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards processing fee and admission fee respectively did not admit that there were no facilities, nor aircrafts. The academy started its operations in 1995 approved by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). It has a fleet of six Cessna 152s, one Cessna 172, one DC-3, two Beach Baron B-58s one multi engine HS 125 along with three helicopters. It is housed in 80,000 sft area with training infrastructure of 30 academic class rooms, approved electrical, radio instrument, airframe, single and multi engine, rotary, battery workshop, labs, briefing hall, administrative block which includes hostel facility for 300 students, and also library facility with 8000 books. It has ISO certification to impart aviation training facility. It had completed 24 batches of aircraft maintenance engineer course and 15 batches of commercial pilot license course with a pass out of more than 1000 students of engineers and pilots. They have already been employed in various airlines throughout the world. The complainant was not entitled for refund and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the opposite party filed the affidavit evidence of its Executive Director and got Exs. B1 to B17 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not substantiate the fact that there was no facilities , nor was having requisite flights to impart training. Since the complainant could not prove any deficiency in service the complaint was dismissed.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that since facilities and flights were not there he could not admit. It could have taken another candidate to fill up his seat and refunded his amount. When he has no interest and not satisfied with the environment it ought to have refunded the amount. Therefore he prayed that the complaint be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- towards admission fee to join in the opposite party academy for taking commercial pilot license training course on 20.6.2007. Ex. A3 is the letter confirming the seat in the course having received the admission fee vide receipt Ex. A4. It was categorically noted that the amount paid will not be refunded. It is not case of the complainant that there are no approvals for the opposite party academy to impart commercial pilot license training course. It had made it clear in its brochure Ex. B1 various amounts to be paid for admission into the said course. A note is also appended mentioning fee paid is non-refundable and not transferable. The complainants father is a government employee as could be seen from his application Ex. B2. The complainant having paid Rs. 50,000/- on 20.6.2007 for the first time issued registered lawyer notice on 2.2.2008 under Ex. A5, eight months after payment of admission fee of Rs. 50,000/-. It is not known why he kept quiet for all these months. It is not as though none of the students had joined in the said course. The opposite party filed Ex. B3 to B14 to prove that it has approvals, and a number of students were admitted in the said course in the said year. It has filed photographs of various air crafts possessed by it marked as Ex. B15. If really the academy is not having requisite wherewithal to impart pilot training course he ought to have filed the affidavits of various students who sought for admission. Except his self-serving evidence no evidence whatsoever was filed to prove that the academy was not having proper infrastructure or approvals to run the academy for the year 2007.
The Dist. Forum has rightly opined that the complainant could not prove that there was deficiency in service on its part. The complainant for the reasons best known did not appear and pursue the training. Now eight months there after he intends to seek refund of the amount which under the terms of the admission was not entitled to. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
9) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER 08/09/2011 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.