Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member and Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
ABHINAV PUNIA - Appellant
Versus
JETKING COMPUTER HARDWARE AND NETWORKING INSTITUTE - Respondent
First Appeal No. 149 of 2013
Decided on : 12-04-2016
Mr. Gaurav Verma, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the opposite parties for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Section 15, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and highlighted the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the opposite parties. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence presented by the appellant and the failure of the respondents to contest the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant enrolled in an institute and deposited fees, but the institute closed before the course completion. The institute directed the complainant to another branch, which also refused to complete the course. The director assured a refund but failed to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, causing mental agony and economic loss to the complainant.
Issues: Deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, failure to refund fees, mental agony, economic loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by the appellant and the failure of the respondents to contest the evidence, leading to a finding of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, modified the compensation amount, and directed the respondents to pay a total sum of Rs. 75,000 to the appellant-complainant within 30 days from the date of the order.
ORDER
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member—This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 137 of 2012. By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 and has directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant, within one month from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the fact of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had taken admission in the Jetking Computer Hardware and Networking Institute, Haridwar-opposite party No. 1 on 24.09.2009 and deposited Rs. 17,097/- vide receipt No. 004237 and Rs. 1,103/- vide receipt No. 004238 on the same day. The complainant also deposited Rs. 15,773 on 26.10.2009 vide receipt No. 004312 and Rs. 15,773/- on 25.11.2009 vide receipt No. 004383, in total Rs. 49,746/- in the opposite party No. 1-Institute. The opposite party No. 1-Institute was closed before completion of the course. When the complainant asked the reason why did the institute closed, then it was informed that now further course will be completed in the Roorkee Branch of the institute. The complainant time and again asked about the closure of the institute, the opposite party No. 1 through a letter dated 13.10.2010 apprised the complainant, by showing this letter in Roorkee Branch of the institute, the course will be completed there at Roorkee Branch. On the direction of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant went to Roorkee Branch of the institute, but they refused for the completion of the course and also informed the complainant that as the complainant had taken admission in Jetking Computer Hardware and Networking Institute, Haridwar, then this course will be completed there, because Roorkee Branch has never received any fee for the course from the complainant. The complainant became shocked. He contacted Sh. Mayank Chauhan, Director of the Institute, who is also opposite party No. 3 of this consumer complaint. Sh. Mayank Chauhan assured the complainant that he will refund the entire fees amount to the complainant up to 31.12.2011, but the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 have not paid fees amount to the complainant so far. The act of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has suffered mental agony and economic loss by the conduct of opposite party Nos. 1 and 3. The act of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 also comes under unfair trade practise. The cause of action arose on 05.04.2012, when the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 have not paid the entire amount of fees, as assured by them to the complainant.
3. The District Forum, Haridwar issued notices to the opposite parties. Service of notices was found deemed sufficient against the opposite parties, but neither the opposite parties appeared before the District Forum nor filed written statement before the District Forum, therefore, on 17.01.2013 the District Forum has passed an order to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite parties.
4. The District Forum on hearing the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, passed an impugned order dated 06.05.2013 in the above terms. Not satisfied with the said order, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation.
5. We have heard Sh. Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the entire record of the District Forum and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient service upon them.
6. Appellant-complainant has filed an affidavit in evidence (paper Nos. 15/1 to 15/2 on the District Forum's record) along with original receipt dated 24.09.2009 for a sum of Rs. 17,097/-, receipt dated 24.09.2009 for a sum of Rs. 1,103/-, receipt dated 26.10.2009 for a sum of Rs. 15,773/- and receipt dated
