AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 19.7.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 586/2017 in which order dated 03.01.2017 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban Distt. (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No.54/2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for directing the Respondent to refund Rs.26,986/- paid to the respondent as fees for advance Squash Coaching.
While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum, the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission and Opp. Party before the District Forum.
Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 1.10.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments/ Synopsis on 22.01.2023 (Petitioner) and 04.09.2023 (Respondent) respectively.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -
(i) On 01.01.2014, OP Chembur Gymkhana invited Complainant through their notice board for joining the advanced coaching, in squash promising qualified professional coaches and imparting of advanced training techniques for players. He joined the advance coaching sessions from 16.1.2014 on payment of monthly fees of Rs.3371 till 17.9.2014 wherein thereafter complainant was asked to leave the said course as he had brought to opponent’s notice the deficiencies in service. Complainant had paid sum of Rs.26,986/- for coaching to the OP for which he was issued receipts by OP.
(ii) As per the complainant, some of the deficiencies noticed by him as follows:
· There were so called 5 qualified coaches but none of these had any coaching certificate.
· Coaches used to take the said coaching for about 45 minutes instead of 1 hour and 2 hours.
· Coaches were not certified coaches nor approved by any professional coaching association for coaching.
· In the month of August and September 2014, the coaches were absent for 12 sessions out of 26 sessions without prior intimation to the complainant resulting in loss of time.
iii. Complainant further submitted that he brought the said deficiencies to the notice of OP vide his complaints dated 21.6.2014 and 4.10.2014 and several oral requests and complaints but no corrective action was taken by OP. Complainant therefore filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
Vide Order dated 3.1.2017 in the CC no. 54 of 2015 the District Commission has dismissed the complaint and passed the following order :
(i) The complainant has failed to prove that the coaches appointed by the OP were not having experience requisite for becoming a coach. He attended the coaching and after six months in June 2014 stated that OP Gymkhana is one of the finest squash court. There is no evidence regarding deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged by complainant.
(ii) The complainant availed service rendered by Chembur Gymkhana therefore he cannot claim refund of fees. The Managing Committee of Trust is empowered to manage the affairs and to take appropriate action for promotion of objects of trust. We cannot legally direct opponent to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, as we do not find any deficiency in service. Hence, the Consumer complaint is dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said Order dated 3.1.2017 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 19.7.2018 in FA No. 586 of 2017 has partly allowed the Appeal and ordered as under :
“(i) The Appeal No.586/2017 is partly allowed.
(ii) The order of District Forum in consumer complaint No.54 of 2015 is set aside.
(iii) Opponent is declared guilty of deficiency in service.
(iv) The Consumer Complaint No.54/2015 filed by complainant is partly allowed.
(v) Opponent is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to the complainant towards missing sessions with simple interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing the complaint till realization.
(vi) Opponent is directed to pay to the appellant/complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for inconvenience, loss and mental trauma and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of complaint and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this appeal.
(vii) Opponent is directed to make above payment within 60 days from the date of this order failing which opponent will be liable to pay the same alongwith simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of expiry of above period of sixty days on the above amounts till realization.”
Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 19.7.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:
· the State Commission has held respondent – Chembur Gymkhana ‘Guilty of Deficiency of service’ and ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ and has erred by not refunding the entire fees paid by petitioner, sum of Rs.26,986/-.
· the observation of State Commission implies that the ‘Service of Advance Coaching’ by the respondent ‘never existed’ ‘nor provided’ for consecutive 8 months to the petitioner.
· the order needs to be revised for safeguarding larger interest of Consumers and conserving the sanity of the “Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. While passing the order the State Commission ignored that the respondent is a Charitable trust, the objective of respondent was to promote sports on the leased collector’s Land.
· the National Commission to atleast refund the total fees of Rs.26,986/- paid to the respondent as fees for advance squash coaching and therefore, the petition may be allowed.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
8.1 Petitioner contends that he joined “Advance Squash Coaching Programme” from 17.1.2014 and onwards for an advance monthly fee of Rs.3371/- till September 2014. The petitioner had paid total sum of Rs.26,986/- for eight moths coaching.
8.2 The petitioner had through the letter dated 21.6.2014 informed the respondent about the deficiency in Squash Coaching Programme that went unanswered by respondent. Further, on 4.10.2014, the petitioner informed about gross absenteeism to the respondent in August and September, 2014 which has also not responded. On 12.12.2014, petitioner through an Advocate sent Legal Notice to respondent to reimburse coaching fees and pointed out deficiencies in Squash Coaching Programme which went unanswered.
8.3 Petitioner filed a consumer complaint which was dismissed by District Forum on 3.1.2017 stating that the petitioner has not proved deficiency of service of the respondent. Again, on 17.5.2017, Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Maharashtra State Commission which was partly allowed and set aside the order of District Forum. The State Commission considered that the petitioner has consumed rest of six months of deficient coaching. Hence, it has not refunded the entire eight months of coaching fees. Hence, this Revision Petition.
8.4 The Respondent contends that the complainant is not a member of Chembur Gymkhana and came to know about the coaching in squash from Shri Kunwar Pal Singh, a coach for junior squash players. The complainant approached Shri Kunwarpal Singh and requested for coaching programme in Gymkhana. The complainant was informed that the coaching scheme was for beginners however, the complainant still wanted to join though he was not a junior. The coaching in Chembur Gymkhana was meant for juniors however, the complainant insisted to join. The OP had put on the notice on the Notice Board for Members of Gymkhana Club. Hence, the complainant has failed to show any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the State Commission, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order duly addressing all the contentions of the parties, particularly, the contentions raised by the Petitioner herein and we find no reason to interfere with its findings. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[1] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The Petitioner herein having availed services for a certain period cannot seek refund for the entire amount. As Respondent/OP has not challenged the State Commission order, it is binding on them.
In view of the foregoing, order of the State Commission is upheld, Revision Petition is dismissed.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.