State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ku. Vaishali Jha vs Akanksha Professional Classes on 9 March, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.756/2010
Instituted on :21/12/2010
Ku. Vaishali Jha,
D/o Shri Vipin Kumar Jha,
Through : Vali-Father Shri Vipin Kumar Jha,
S/o Late Shri Prabhat Kumar Jha,
R/o : Shanti Chowk, Purani Basti,
Raipur (C.G) .... Appellant
Vs.
Akanksha Professional Classes,
Through : Director Atindra Dubey,
Near Bal Samaj Library, Brahmanpara,
Raipur (C.G) .... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Amit Patel, for appellant.
Smt. Anjali Pandey, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 09 /03/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 22/11/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.246/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, has been dismissed, which was filed for seeking compensation, on account of // 2 // not providing coaching, as per guarantee provided by the respondent/Coaching Institution.
2. It is not in dispute that respondent is running a coaching institution, in which the appellant herein, took admission in the month of July, 2008. As per terms agreed between the parties, fees of Rs.14,000/- was paid by the complainant for coaching, on the condition that out of that fees, Rs.8,000/- would be refundable in case the student, does not get 80% marks in the 10th Board Examination.
3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum, was that on the assurance of respondent/Coaching Institute, she took admission in the Coaching Institute and paid fees of Rs.14,000/-, but after taking admission there, it was observed that teachers of proper skill and caliber, were not appointed by the Coaching Institution and for most of the time, teachers were absent. It was also seen by mother of the complainant. Ultimately after five months from taking admission, she was required to discontinue taking coaching from the respondent Institution. She demanded refund of the fees paid by her to the respondent/Coaching Institution, but respondent paid only a sum of Rs.5,000/- and deducted remaining amount, on the pretext that the student failed to remain attentive in the coaching session and it was on account of her own fault that she was required to be shifted to regular course, under which there was no guarantee and on account of // 3 // this, a sum of Rs.3,000/-, was deducted from the guaranteed amount of Rs.8,000/- and sum of Rs.5,000/- was refunded to her.
4. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed by both parties before it, dismissed the complaint by observing that the complainant obtained 68% marks in the 10th Board Examination. Thus, she successfully completed examination with a higher percentage. It has also been observed that the complainant was not attentive in attending coaching sessions and her sister Ms. Aditi, was also taking coaching in the same institution, fees for which , was not paid. On the basis of these findings, complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
5. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
6. From the pleadings of both parties and from the affidavits filed by them, it is clear that as per terms agreed between the parties, on payment of lump sum amount of Rs.14,000/-, 80% securing of marks, was guaranteed by the respondent/Coaching Institution in the 10th Board Examination and it was promised that in case of not getting that much percentage in the examination, out of the deposited amount, Rs.8,000/- only, would be refunded to the student. Out of the amount // 4 // deposited, only Rs.6,000/- was collected as tuition fees and Rs.8,000/- was the amount refundable to the student on the aforesaid condition.
7. We further find that appellant/complainant, her mother and father, all of them have filed their affidavits to the effect that in the respondent/Coaching Institution, teachers were not available to take classes, though it was promised that coaching to the students, would be provided by the teachers of English medium and higher percentage in the examination to the extent of 80%, was guaranteed. It has also been stated by all of them that as classes, were not regularly conducted in the coaching institution and, teachers were not there, therefore, the appellant/complainant was required to discontinue taking coaching from the respondent Institution.
8. To counter these allegations, Ms. Akanksha Dubey being proprietor of the Coaching Institution filed her affidavit, in which terms of the coaching, were admitted, but she has also stated in her affidavit that as per agreed terms at least 90% attendance of the student, was required and it was also required that every student must follow the instructions given by the teachers and to complete the home work everyday. She also stated that after four months from taking admission, the respondent/ Institution was required to evaluate each and every student, as to whether he or she is following the instructions given by the teachers or not and in case it is found that // 5 // somebody is not following the instructions of the teachers, then the student, can be shifted to regular course and in such case, an amount of Rs.3,000/-, was to be deducted from the guarantee course amount.
9. We find that whatever has been stated by Ms. Akanksha Dubey being proprietor of the respondent and her brother Mr.Atindra Kumar Dubey, being Director of the respondent, in their affidavits, is not part of any agreement executed between the parties. The copy of receipt filed by the complainant/appellant, shows that out of an amount of Rs.14,000/-, guarantee was provided to the student for getting 80% marks in the examination. It is clear that in spite of coaching provided by the respondent/coaching institution, the appellant/complainant, could secure only 68% marks in the Board Examination and therefore, an amount of Rs.8,000/-, which was guaranteed amount as per scheme of the respondent/Coaching Institution, was to be refunded by the respondent to the appellant/complainant, particularly when no agreement was executed between the parties regarding 90% attendance in the coaching classes or regarding completion of the home work or regarding following instructions of the teachers.
10. Thus, as per admission of the respondent/Coaching Institution, as well as, as per contents of receipt of deposit of fees, it is clear that Rs.14,000/-, were obtained by the respondent from the appellant/complainant on the guarantee that she will definitely secure // 6 // 80% marks in the 10th Board Examination. As she could not secure that much marks in the 10th Board Examination, so the amount of Rs.8,000/- was refundable to her, out of which only Rs.5,000/- has been refunded by the respondent. In view of this, Rs.3,000/-, more is required to be paid by the respondent to the appellant/complainant.
11. Thus, the appeal succeeds in part and is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment to the appellant/complainant. Apart from it a sum of Rs.1,000/-, more is also payable by the respondent to the appellant/complainant as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/03/2011 /03/2011 /03/2011