First Appeal No. 16 of 2015. Case: Parminder Singh Vs FIIT JEE Limited and Ors.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 16 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Devinder Singh Soundh, Advocate |
| Judges | Sham Sunder, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | I (2015) CPJ 104 (UT Chd.) |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2015 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Sham Sunder, J. (President)
-
This appeal is directed against the majority order dated 10.12.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). However, one member of the District Forum, recorded dissenting order dated 16.12.2014.
-
The facts, in brief, are that on the assurance given by the representative of the opposite parties, the complainant got enrolled his son namely Jyot Anmol Singh, in the Opposite Parties Institute in Pinnacle-Two Year Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE, on 30.12.2012. The complainant, paid an amount of Rs. 2,19,750, in total, against the settled fee of Rs. 2,69,628. Besides this, the opposite parties retained 6 signed cheques, issued by the complainant. It was settled between the complainant and the representative of the opposite parties that the venue of the Coaching Centre would be SCO No. 322, 1st and 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. However, the venue of the Coaching Centre was changed to Mount Carmel School, unilaterally. It was stated that while taking coaching, the son of the complainant experienced that the method of teaching was not upto the mark, as there was a communication gap between the faculty members and the students. Not only this, the son of the complainant, also noticed that the teachers were not responding properly to the questions raised by the students. The matter was reported to the authorities of the Institute, time and again, but except bald assertions, nothing was done. It was further stated that, on the directions of the Management of the opposite parties Institute, the son of the complainant, stopped attending the coaching classes and requested for the refund of fee along with signed cheques aforesaid, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 11.6.2014, upon the opposite parties, for refund of the fees, deposited towards the said Course, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence 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, directing...
To continue reading
Request your trial