State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neha Bensal vs 1. The Director, Pearl Academy Of ... on 24 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (First Appeal No.164 of 2010) Date of Institution : 13.04.2010 Date of Decision : 24/05/2011 Neha Bensal d/o Sh. Jagdish Bansal, House No.555-A, Sector 2, Panchkula. Appellant V E R S U S 1. The Director, Pearl Academy of Fashion, SP 38A RIICO, Industrial Area, Kuka, Delhi Road, Jaipur- 302001. 2. EBONEY SCO No.195, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory ....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh.
K.S. Arya, Advocate for appellant.
Sh. Rakesh Chopra, Adv. for respondent no.1.
Service of respondent no. 2, dispensed with.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 8.7.2008 the complainant (now appellant) got admission in the institute of OP No.1 (now respondent no.1), in the 1st year Fashion Designing Course, and deposited Rs.3,33,500/- vide demand draft dated 10.7.2008, in favour of the said Institute, and subsequently, paid Rs.51,500/- and Rs.7,200/- as hostel and mess charges. Due to unavoidable circumstances, she after joining the course, could not continue her studies, and left the Institute on 15.9.2008. The OPs were telephonically informed. Even a letter dated 24.9.2008, was also sent to the OPs, for refund of the entire fees, and other charges deposited by the complainant. However, the OPs only refunded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. It was further stated that a legal notice dated 12.7.2009 was sent to the OPs, for the refund of the remaining amount, but they failed to do so. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.
3. In reply, OP-1, pleaded that the complainant was guilty of suppression of true and correct facts, and, thus, grossly misused and abused the process of law. It was stated that, no cause of action, whatsoever, arose, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that the complaint was not maintainable, for lack of jurisdiction. It was admitted that the complainant, took admission in the aforesaid course, in the Institute of OP-1, and deposited a sum of Rs.3,33,500/- and Rs.51,500/- towards hostel and mess facilities, after being fully satisfied. It was admitted that letter dated 24.9.2008, from the complainant, was received, after which the process of refund, as per policy, was started and she was refunded the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, which was accepted by her without any protest or demur. The receipt of legal notice, was also admitted. It was further stated that, the legal notice was duly replied, by the OPs. It was denied, that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, to the complainant, or indulgence into unfair trade practice by OP-1.
4. In the written reply filed by OP-2, it was stated that neither it was the agent of OP No.1 nor, was it connected, in any way, with it, for the purposes of conduct of interviews for admission, in the course. It was further stated that, it had only facilitated the availability of the application forms. It was pleaded that OP-2 was impleaded as a party, with a view to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum, at Chandigarh.
5. Subsequently, none appeared, on behalf of OP-2, hence it was proceeded against exparte.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the fee was deposited at Chandigarh. He further submitted that the application form, for admission to the course, in the Institute of OP-1 was obtained from OP-2, at Chandigarh.
He further submitted that, roll number was received by the complainant, at Chandigarh. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had got jurisdiction to entertain and, decide the complaint. He further submitted that only a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, out of the amount, deposited by the complainant, was refunded to her. He further submitted that though the hostel facilities were not used by the complainant, yet, that amount was not refunded to her. He further submitted that the complainant only attended the classes, for a period of one month, and the OPs were required to refund her the entire fee, after deducting the proportionate fee, for the period of one month. He further submitted that the mere fact that no protest was raised by the appellant, at the time of refund of a part of the amount to her, did not debar her from seeking remedy, under the Act. He further submitted that even a sum of Rs.7,500/-, on account of security, which was refundable, was not refunded to the complainant, and, in document OP-1/3, in the remarks column, it was shown that clearance was pending, in respect of this amount. He further submitted that, by not refunding the aforesaid amount, and all other charges, deposited by the complainant, the OPs were not only deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant, but also indulged into an unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
11. The Counsel for the OP/respondent, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant got admission, in the Fashion Designing Course, of the Institute of OP-1, and deposited the fee for one year, alongwith other charges. He further submitted that at the time of taking admission, the policy of refund, was made clear, to the complainant and her father. He further submitted that, even in the admission form, copy of which is OP-1/1, which was duly signed by the complainant and her guardian, they admitted that they had gone through the refund fee Policy, as well as, the students guideline/instructions, as given in the students handbook. He further submitted that according to the refund policy, the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was refunded to the complainant. He further submitted that though a sum of Rs.7,500/-, as security, was refunded to the complainant, yet, on account of mistake, in the remarks column of OP-1/3, it was written, that clearance was pending. He further submitted that, neither, there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor, it indulged into an unfair trade practice. He further submitted that, the order of the District Forum, being legal, and valid, deserves to be upheld.
12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant, got admission, in the Fashion Designing Course of OP-1 Institute. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that she deposited fee to the tune of Rs.3,33,500/- and Rs.51,500/-, towards hostel and mess facilities. She allegedly attended the classes for a period of little over one month. OP-1/1 is a copy of the admission form, which was duly signed by the complainant and her guardian (father). While signing the admission form/application form, the complainant and her guardian, admitted that they had gone through the refund fee policy, as well as, the students guidelines/instructions, as given in the students handbook, pertaining to the Academy`s policy on minimum attendance requirements etc. and non- payment of fees etc. The complainant and her guardian acknowledged the same, and also agreed to accept the decision of the OP, in this regard. OP-1/3/C10, is a copy of the admission policy/guidelines of refund of fee to the students of normal category. It is evident from OP-1/5, the authenticity whereof, has not been disputed by the complainant, that, in case, she left the course, in the mid, she was only entitled to the refund of examination fee, security, alumni fee, lab, library and resource centre fee, tuition fee, hostel mess fee and hostel security, to the extent of amount, mentioned in the column relating amount refundable. Under the heading `amount refundable` of OP1/3, a sum of Rs.7,500/- was written, but, in the remarks column, it was mentioned that clearance was pending. However, the Counsel for the OP, clarified that this amount was actually refunded. If the total amount, which was refunded to the complainant, as shown, in OP-1/3, is calculated, that comes to Rs.1,70,000/-. This amount was admittedly refunded to the complainant. At the time of receiving the amount aforesaid, neither the complainant, nor her guardian, raised any protest or demur. They also did not give/write any letter to the OP, that a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, was being obtained by them under protest. So, whatever, the amount was refunded to the complainant, was, as per the refund policy of OP-1 and the guidelines, which were made known to the complainant, at the time of admission. The remaining amount was forfeited, as per the policy, and the guidelines, referred to above. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in holding that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor did they indulge into any unfair trade practice.
13. In the entire complaint, there was not even a whisper, as to how, the OPs were deficient in rendering service. The complainant left the course, after continuing her studies for some time, of her own accord. In Jasleen Kaur vs. MD A.K. Vidya Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2005(3)CLT 584, the appellant attended the classes for 3 days, and left the course midway. It was held that she was not entitled to the refund of fee. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant relied upon Dr.Prem Seth and Anr. vs. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla and Anr. 2009(1) CPC 304, Sri Ganga Higher Secondary School vs. C.Nithya (Minor) 2008(1)CLT 114 and ICFAI University & Anr. vs. Shailendra Lodha 2008(3)CLT 80, in support of his contention that the complainant was entitled to the refund of the entire amount, after deducting, therefrom, the proportionate fee, for about one month. The facts of all these cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Jasleen Kaur`s case (supra), was decided by this Commission, whereas, the cases relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, were decided by other State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. The principle of law, laid down, in Jasleen Kaur`s case (supra), is, thus binding, on this Commission. The submission of Counsel for the complainant, in this regard, is without merit, and, stands rejected.
14. The District Forum, also came to the conclusion that before filing the complaint, the complainant had served notice upon the OPs, copy whereof is annexure C-11. The OPs sent reply to the said notice, copy whereof is annexure OP-1/4. The District Forum, further held that the complainant, intentionally did not submit reply sent to her, notice, with the complaint, so that the true facts could not come to the notice of the Forum, while admitting the complaint at preliminary stage. Even, in the complaint, the complainant did not mention the date of her admission, in the course. The District Forum, further came to the conclusion, that right from the beginning, the intention of the complainant, was to conceal the facts, from the Forum. Thus, the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that it was a false and frivolous complaint, and, as such, the complainant should be imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- under Section 26 of the Act. It is evident from OP-1/4, copy of the reply, that the same was sent by registered A.D., through Rajesh Awasthi, Advocate, to Shri Rajesh Kumar Rai, Advocate, 229, Pipli Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh, who sent the notice, on behalf of the complainant, to the OP. It means that this reply was presumed to have been received by the advocate of the complainant, but it was not submitted, alongwith the complaint, so as to conceal the material fact from the District Forum. Had the reply, which was received by the Advocate of the complainant, been attached with the complaint, by the complainant, the District Forum, might have dismissed the complaint, at the preliminary stage. The findings of the District Forum, that the material facts were concealed, from it, and the complaint was false and frivolous, are correct. Thus, the District Forum, was right, in imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 26 of the Act, upon the complainant. The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
16. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
24th May, 2011 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg