Computer Pride Inc. (USA) vs Sanjeev Kumar

THIS appeal has been directed by opposite party Computer Pride Inc.(USA) against order dated 11.9.2001 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent Sanjeev Kumar (complainant) was accepted with costs of Rs. 2,000 and the appellant was directed to refund Rs. 17,500 to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. till payment and further to pay Rs. 30,000 as damages.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent had taken admission in Web commerce with Computer Price Inc. (USA)-appellant and paid a sum of Rs. 17,500 as detailed in para-4 of the complaint. In fact the total fee payable was Rs. 59,000 but it was settled with the appellant for Rs. 45,000. It was next averred that the appellant had given training to the respondent in computer up to November, 2000 and thereafter did not give any training as no teacher was available in spite of the fact that respondent had given application to the appellant for giving training and thus, failed to provide any teacher after 13.11.2000.

It was further averred that respondent (complainant) suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000 due to deficiency in service on the part of appellant as he was to do business in computer after obtaining training and for non-providing of training by the appellant, he suffered a setback in his career and further he had been harassed mentally as well as physically.

WITH these allegations, complaint was filed and prayed that the appellant be directed to refund Rs. 17,500 along with interest @ 12% p.a. till payment and further be directed to pay Rs. 50,000 on account of harassment, loss of business besides Rs. 3,000 as costs of proceedings. The appellant contested the complaint and filed written reply through its proprietors Sh. Chaman Lal and Ashok Kumar. It took certain preliminary objections; that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form ; that the complaint was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, it admitted that the respondent had taken admission in Web commerce but denied that any discount was given to him to pay fee and infact the computer fee was settled at Rs. 59,000. It admitted that respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 17,500 towards fee and had promised to pay the balance amount at the time of start of the course i.e. Rs. 59,000 in all and at the request of the respondent, it had agreed to take the amount of Rs. 59,000 by instalments but respondent had failed to pay instalments after 15.11.2000. It denied the allegations that the teacher was not available to give training to the respondent regarding computer in the institution but asserted that Sh. A.K. Sharma was very much available for giving training . It next stated that it had issued letters dated 8.12.2000 and 8.1.2001 to deposit the balance fee but respondent failed to deposit the same and as such his name was struck off from the institution on 9.2.2001, although, respondent remained in the institution up to 9.2.2001 without making payment of any computer fee. It next stated that it had suffered financial loss due to non-payment of the computer fee by the respondent and he was liable to pay settled computer course fee to it. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 11.9.2001 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 2,000 and directed the appellant to refund Rs. 17,500 to the respondent (complainant) along with interest @ 12% p.a. till payment and further to pay Rs. 30,000 as damages. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Mr. Hari Parkash, Advocate proxy for Mr. Vipan Kaushal, Advocate for appellant, Mr. Suresh Singla, Advocate for respondent (complainant) and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that the respondent (complainant) had taken admission in the institute of appellant i.e. Computer Pride Inc. (USA) in Web commerce and had paid Rs. 17,500 on various dates towards fee and last payment of Rs. 3,000 was paid on 15.11.2000. Admittedly respondent did not make any payment to the appellant after 15.11.2000. There is also no dispute about it that the total fee which was payable to the appellant was Rs. 59,000. The case of the respondent is that although, fee payable was Rs. 59,000 but appellant had agreed to charge Rs. 45,000 against Rs. 59,000 in the month of July, 2000. No documentary evidence has been produced on file by the respondent that the appellant had agreed to charge Rs. 45,000 as fee instead of Rs. 59,000 and had allowed Rs. 14,000 as discount. Affidavit to this effect Ex. A.1 filed by Sanjeev Kumar is contradicted by affidavit of Sh. Chaman Lal, one of the proprietors of computer Price Inc. (USA)appellant. The case of the appellant is that the fee amount was to be paid in installments. Receipts Exs. A-2 to A-8 placed on file proved this fact that part payment was made by installments for the course which was of 12 months'' duration. The appellant had written to the respondent letters Annexure R.2 dated 8.12.2000, another letter Ex. R.3 dated 8.1.2001 and further letter dated 9.2.2001 Ex. R.4 calling upon respondent to pay fee immediately to avoid fine. Letter Ex. R.4 further states that since he had failed to pay fee for the last three months and had been continuously using internet in the class and as such his name was removed from the class and he was advised not to enter the institute premises without written permission of the appellant. A perusal of the attendance register for the month of Feberuary 2001, whose copy is Ex. R.5 also shows that the respondent (complainant), whose name is mentioned at serial No. 3 attended the classes till 9.2.2001 , therefore, it cannot be held that respondent did not attend the classes after 13.11.2000 as no teacher was available for guidance for imparting training. The appellant categorically stated in the written reply that the teacher Sh. A.K. Sharma was available for imparting guidance/training to the students including respondent throughout the academic session but since, respondent did not pay the balance fee, so, his name was struck off from the rolls in February, 2001. Further it cannot be held that there was any deficiency on the part of appellant and the appellant had no teacher to give training after 13.11.2000 but on the other hand there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent (complainant) as he had not paid balance amount of fee.

There is observation of District Consumer Forum that the affidavit of Sh. A.K. Sharma had not been filed to the effect that he had imparted guidance/training throughout the academic session. There was no need of filing this affidavit because already version of the complainant by way of affidavit had been contradicted by the affidavit Ex. R.8 of the proprietor of the appellant Chaman Lal. Chaman Lal in his affidavit did not state that training/guidance to the respondent was imparted for whole of the academic session but he categorically stated that the training/guidance was not imparted for whole of the academic session because respondent did not pay balance amount of fee and as such his name was struck off from the rolls of institute on 9.2.2001 but upto 9.2.2001 he was given computer training by Sh. A.K. Sharma. The claim of respondent has been accepted by the District Consumer Forum on the basis of no evidence. In fact there is nothing on the file to hold that there was any deficiency on the part of appellant. However, complaint is maintainable and it is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely head office and further District Consumer Forum at Ropar had jurisdiction because the contract was concluded with the appellant in the jurisdiction area of Ropar.

THEREFORE, in view of the discussion above , we find that there is force in the appeal and same is accepted. Consequently, the order of District Consumer Forum dated 11.9.2001, being illegal, is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.