JAI KUMAR MITTAL Vs. BRILLIANT TUTORIALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the Complainant that he enrolled with Brilliant Tutorials, the Opposite Party, for the course of postal support coaching for the civil services examination 1994. For this study material, the Complainant has paid a fee of Rs.4,800/- for the Preliminary and Main Examinations of the year 1994. He has chosen Commerce as optional subject in preliminary examination and in the main examination his optional subjects were first, 'Commerce and Accountancy" and second "Law" besides other compulsory subjects. It is his contention that there was gross deficiency of service by the Opposite Party in supplying the study material. In the study material there were material defects and the standard required to be maintained for civil services examination was not maintained. It is his submission that the Opposite Party induced the candidates by issuing and publishing prospectus with incorrect particulars. In the said material incorrect answers were supplied which constituted a gross deficiency of service. The Complainant has suffered a lot on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is submitted that mistakes given in the study material supplied by the Opposite Party spoiled the chances of the Complainant to be a civil servant and has shattered his hopes and dreams. He has claimed the total compensation of Rs.30 lakhs and also refund of the amount of Rs.4,800/- paid to the Opposite Party by way of fees. The Complainant has also pointed out that in the prospectus issued by the Opposite Party it has been specifically stated that:

(2.) THE Complainant stated that in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a New Section 4A, Ban on advertisement, and Section 8A, Burden of proof in certain cases, were inserted in 1986. These were not incorporated in the study material. The Opposite Party has not replied to this. In this connection the Complainant stated that opposite party had deliberately avoided to reply to this, because, the study material was not revised after 1984.

(3.) THE Complainant submits that a question from the Dowry Prohibition Act was asked in 1990 Civil Services (Mains) examination. The Opposite Party has not submitted any reply. In support of his contention, the Complainant submitted that in spite of a question on this Act was asked in the Examination in 1990, the Amendment related to the same is not incorporated in the study material supplied for 1994 Examinations.