Kolkata Commission Rules In Favour Of Student: National Academy Of Media And Events Directed To Pay Rs. 50,000
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kolkata (Unit – II Central) presided by Mrs. Sukla Sengupta along with Mrs. Sahana Ahmed Basu and Mr. Reyazuddin Khan as members allowed a consumer complaint against Principal National Academy of Media and Events. The key issue was that a six-month photography diploma course, scheduled to start in November, did not...
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kolkata (Unit – II Central) presided by Mrs. Sukla Sengupta along with Mrs. Sahana Ahmed Basu and Mr. Reyazuddin Khan as members allowed a consumer complaint against Principal National Academy of Media and Events. The key issue was that a six-month photography diploma course, scheduled to start in November, did not commence as promised. As a result, the District Commission held that the Academy was highly negligent and failed to provide the expected services. Further observing that the Academy had adopted unfair means of trade, the forum directed the complainant to compensated with an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
Brief Facts
The case revolves around one Priyal Jain (complainant). She got herself enrolled in a six-month photography diploma course with the Principal National Academy (Opposite Party no. 1) on November 4, 2019. To secure admission, Priyal paid Rs. 20,000/- along with a fee of Rs. 500/- for the Admission form. The course was supposed to begin in the first week of November and end in April 2020. However, the Academy failed to start the course on time despite assurances.
As per the complaint, Priyal tried to get in touch with the Academic Councilor of the Academy (Opposite Party no. 2) on November 19, 2019 but got no response. Then on December 6, 2019, the Faculty of the Academy (Opposite Party no. 3) invited Priyal to a meeting scheduled for later in December. However, this meeting turned out to be about event management, not the photography classes the complainant had signed up for.
After all this, Priyal tried again to reach out to the Academy to find out when the photography course would start. However, she received no response. Feeling frustrated and seeing no other options, she sent a text message to the Faculty asking for a refund. But the faculty asked her to speak with the Accounts Department allegedly denying their responsibility for the refund. Left with no other recourse, the Complainant then decided to file this case.
Arguments of the Principal National Academy of Media and Events
The Academy contested the case, claiming that it was not maintainable and should be dismissed. They argued that the Complainant's application was malicious and had no valid reason for the reliefs sought. In addition to refuting all the allegations made against them, the Academy and its officials accused the Complainant for exerting pressure and needlessly extending the legal proceedings, alleging that such actions were intended to create unnecessary controversies.
Observations of the Commission
The Commission observed that the Complainant had enrolled in the course and paid the required fees but did not receive the promised education on time. Notably, there was no supporting evidence for the Academy's arguments, and they also failed to provide any documentation. The Commission also noted that the Academy did not provide clear information regarding the course's status. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favor of the Complainant, finding that the Principal National Academy had been negligent and deficient in its service and engaged in unfair trade practices.
As a result of this decision, the Commission directed the Academy (along with its officials) to refund Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant and pay an additional Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs. Furthermore, they were instructed to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused.
The Academy was directed to comply with this decision within 30 days from the date of passing the order, failing which they would be subject to an annual interest rate of 12%.
Case Title: Miss Priyal Jain vs. Principal National Academy of Media and Events & Ors.
Counsel for the Complainant: Ms Paroma Sengupta, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: N/A