SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISHWAR SHARMA, A Vs. M/S. BRILLIANT TUTORIALS PVT. LTD., RAJ LAXMI PLAZA PLOT NO. 15, SECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / petitioner admitted his son Sankalp Sharma for IIT-JEE coaching at the Coaching Centre of the opposite party at Raj Laxmi Plaza, Plot No.15, Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi, paying a sum of Rs.42,495/- as the coaching fee. The programme in which the petitioner / complainant had admitted his son for coaching was a one year programme. The case of the complainants / petitioners is that the coaching classes were not held regularly and were postponed from time to time. As a result, the son of the complainant could not get proper coaching from the respondent / opposite party. This is also the case of the petitioner / complainant that the aforesaid coaching classes were altogether stopped on 18.11.2011, without assigning any reason and without making any alternative arrangement for coaching of the students who had taken admission in the aforesaid coaching course. The complainant had to admit his child to another coaching institute. He claims to have spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- in obtaining coaching for his son from other sources. When he approached the respondent for refund of the fee, which he had paid, the said prayer was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

(2.) The respondent remained ex-parte before the District Forum which vide its order dated 21.10.2013, directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.23,295/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum form the date of filing of the complaint. A sum of Rs.2,500/- was awarded to him as the cost of litigation. No compensation however, was awarded to the complainant.

(3.) Being dissatisfied from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 13.10.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by him. Being aggrieved he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.