1. Arguments heard and record perused. What could I adduce from the pleading is that the petitioner got admission in the respondent's academy on 01-03-10 in the course of PMS for a period of 6 months and paid Rs. 25000/- on the following conditions. a) That the respondent will arrange the lectures concerned subjects on 7 days in a week. b) That it was mutually agreed that the time table/ lecturers time will start at 6:00 pm to 10:30 pm daily.
2. But the agony of the petitioner started when the respondent could not provide the services as it was settled between them, that on 19-3-10 the respondent changed the time table starting from 3:00 pm to 7:30 pm, the same factum was told to the petitioner telephonically, on the same day the petitioner requested the respondent not to change the time table but the respondent refused to do so. On 26-3-10 the respondent changed again the time table and informed the petitioner to attend the classes according to the following time table Thursday from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm Friday from 3:00 pm to 7:30 pm Saturday from 4:30pm to 7:30 pm Sunday from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Abdul Khaliq V/s Hamad Haider Dean.
3. The petitioner requested the respondent to refund the tuition fee of Rs. 25000/- already paid but the respondent not only refused to return the same but also threatened him for dire consequences.
4. 2 In this respect petitioner himself appeared as PW-1 and tendered his sworn affidavit Ex-P/1, legal notice Ex-P/2, admission card Ex-P/4, voucher of payment receipt Ex-P/5 copy of time table is Mark P/A, copy of admission form is Mark P/B. In the testimony the petitioner has corroborated the facts narrated above.
5. 3 On the other hand, the version of the respondent is given in written statement as well as in the affidavit. According to which the admission of the petitioner in the respondent's academy on 1-3-10 is admitted, the conditions of arranging of classes for seven days in a week is also admitted.
6. However, the conditions allegedly to be settled at the time of admission that the classes of the complainant would schedule between 6:00 pm to 10:30 pm has been vehemently denied. It is asserted that according to term and condition of the admission there was two timings of classes i.e. 3:00 pm to 7:30 pm or 6:00 pm to 10:30 pm, according to the version of the respondent the classes could be scheduled for any of those timings subject to availability of teachers at different timing. It is admitted that time table of the classes was changed on 19-3-10 and the complainant and other students was duly informed of that changing of time table. It is asserted that the change of said time table is no breach of terms and conditions. It is also asserted that there is no provision of refund of fee according to terms and conditions of the Abdul Khaliq V/s Hamad Haider Dean. admission. About the change of the time table it is asserted that the arranging the students in different sections is sole prerogative of the respondent keeping in view of different factors like the class size should not exceed a certain numbers in order for the teachers to attend to all the students, however, if any student had any compelling reason, he could be transferred from one section to another upon a written request. It is further averred that the time table was changed on 19-3-10 but those changing in time table did not entail any transfer of student from one section to another, hence the section of the complainant remained same i.e. 6:00 pm to 10:30 pm 4 In order to dispose the verdict the complaint in hand the deposition made by the Hamad Haider RW-1 is very material as he has admitted the admission of the petitioner in the academy.
7. According to him classes of PMS started in 2010 but he could not tell the exact date. According to him classes of all subjects of the PMS could be stared at one time because it depended on the availability of the teachers and depended upon administration .According to him two timing had been mentioned in admission form and time of 6:00 pm onward was allowed to the petitioner . He has also stated that it was discretion of the academy to allow the time to their students. He has also admitted that respondent changed the time table on 19-3-10 but that was for timing of 6:00 pm Abdul Khaliq V/s Hamad Haider Dean.
8. 5 In my view, the students are attractive only by a sense of confident thus the complainant joined the academy because of sense of confident as he was categorically told about the timing of the lectures to be started at 6:00 pm to 10:30 pm daily but lateron this timing were changed. Firstly on 19.3.10 from 3:00 pm to 7:30 pm and again on 26-3-10 the detail of which has been given in Para 6 of the complaint.
9. 6 In my view, the respondent deviated from the terms and conditions and could not offer the services according to those term and conditions. In my view, the complainant has succeeded to establish his case. Thus the complaint in hand is decided in the way that respondent shall return the admission fee of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner and petitioner is also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation of mental torture. Thus total claim of the petitioner is decreed to the extent of Rs.
10. 35000/- whereas remaining claim of the petitioner is hereby dismissed being on the higher side.
11. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
12. After completion file be consigned to record room.