ANIL BHASIN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIE SOLUTIONS SYSTEMS LTD.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 6.6.2001, passed by District Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1139/2000 - entitled Shri Anil Bhasin v. THE Managing Director, Pie Solutions and Systems Ltd. & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, Shri Anil Bhasin, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act, averring that his son, Shri Raveen Bhasin, a student of Class XI sat in a written test held by the respondents some time in September, 1999 to get a seat in the Institute of the respondents for purposes of joining the coaching courses for entrance examinations for IIT, JEE, etc. It was stated that said Shri Raveen Bhasin was declared successful in the written test and as such was admitted in the courses conducted by the respondents. It was stated that said Shri Anil Bhasin paid course fees amounting to Rs. 30,000/- on 15.10.1999 to the respondents by means of three cheques. THE duration of the course joined by the son of the appellant was for two years. It was stated that unfortunately his son said Shri Raveen Bhasin was not able to do well in his school examinations and was detained in class XI and the school, where the son of the appellant was studying, not only detained the son of the appellant in Class XI but also transferred the son of the appellant from Science Stream to Humanities Stream, as a result of which, said Shri Raveen Bhasin was not able to pursue his studies in the Science Stream with Mathematics. It was stated that in view of the above changed circumstancs, the amount paid to the respondents for purposes of coaching for joining IIT, JEE was of no use and the appellant approached the Managing Director of the respondents for the refund of the proportionate amount of fees paid to the respondents. It was prayed by the appellant that directions be issued to the respondents to refund the proportionate amount of fees for which no benefit had been taken by his son said Shri Raveen Bhasin. THE appellant had also prayed for grant of compensation to the appellant by the respondents. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents had taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Act. On merits, it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents because the complainant himself admitted the unfortunate failure of his son in the school examinations. It was stated that the respondents were not bound to refund the proportionate amount of fees or any part thereof. It was stated that the complaint, filed by the appellant, deserved to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and on the above ground has rejected the complaint, filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that the son of the appellant joined the coaching course, the duration of which was for two years, being conducted by the respondents and for the aforesaid purpose had paid to the respondents a fees of Rs. 30,000/- on 15.10.1999 by means of three cheques. The sole question requiring consideration in the present appeal is as to whether, in the given facts, can it be stated that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. As per appellant''s own case, the reason given for the refund of the proportionate course fees is the failure of the son of the appellant in the school examination resulting in his transfer from Science Stream to Humanities Stream. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant made a vain attempt by contending that as the son of the appellant was transferred from Science Stream to Humanities Stream, the course which the son of the appellant had joined was of no use to the son of the appellant and on the above ground the appellant is entitled to have the refund of the proportionate fees paid by him to the respondents. In our opinion, in the given facts, the above contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance because the son of the appellant was transferred from Science Stream to Humanities Stream by the School Authorities not for any default on the part of the respondents but due to the fact that the son of the appellant failed in class XIth examination conducted by the school where the son of the appellant was regularly studying. For the failure of the son of the appellant in class XIth, resulting in his transfer from Science Stream to Humanities Stream, the respondents, by no stretch of imagination, can be held responsible. No other point was urged or pressed. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.