APPEAL UNDER SECTION 41 OF THECONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 2019
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHWETH:
1. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the Judgement dated
31st December 2024 passed by the Honble District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai
Suburban, in Consumer Complaint No. 230 of 2023,
hereby prefers this Appeal before the Hon'ble State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Maharashtra, Mumbai, on the following amongst other
grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing
2. The Appellant had filed a Consumer Complaint against
the Respondent for deficiency in service and unfair trade
practices in relation to an online Full Stack Development
course offered by the Respondent. The Appellant had
enrolled in the said course upon the Respondent's
assurance of job placement, structured learning, and
completion of all modules, including five Full Stack
projects.
3. The Appellant had paid a total fee of Rs. 70,800/-(Rupees
Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Only) i.e. (Rs. 5,500/
paid on 18th October 2021 and Rs. 65,300/- paid on 3rd
November 2021). However, the Respondent failed to fulfl
its commitments regarding the course structure, timely
completion, and placement assistance. Copies of the
paymernt receipts are annexed herewith as Exhibit A and
Bof Original Consumer Complaint
4. Despite multiple complaints and communications from
the Appellant, the Respondent failed to address the
grievances satisfactorily. The Appellant had raised an
online Consumer Grievance Complaint (Grievance No.
3842641) on 17th September 2022, followed by a legal
notice dated 30th September 2023. Copies of these
communications are annexed herewith as Exhibit Cto
DR. TC. KAUSHIK Exhibit H, respectively of Original Consumer Complaint.
MUVEAI
GOVe (MAHASHTRA)
Regd. Na. 309
Exs du 12 12286
15
PNMES
5. The Respondent failed
to
and follow-ups made byrespond appropriately to emails
the Appellant, in an
meeting on 19th September 2022, online
record of this communication is refused any refund. A
annexed as Exhibit G of
Original Complaint.
6. The complainant filed a
complaint before Hon'ble
Consumer commission in 2024 arnd district
in the month of matter was admitted
February after which complainant
in negotiations with the was
respondent, However, the said
negotiations and settlement failed and
choose to go ahead with the complainant
consumer complaint.
7. The complainant
approached the Hon'ble District
commission dated 27th December, 2024
department refuse to serve the notice statingwhere the
serving defendant would not be able to that, after
reach for the
matter on 31st December, 2024 hence the
was
complainant
suggested to take a date and serve the notice after
31st December, 2024 However, on 31st
Decenber, 2024
the Hón'ble court dismissed the order stating
that notice
was not being served till the date to the
respondent.
8. The Appellant submits that the impugned
Judgement is
contrary to the settled principles of consumer law and
does not adequately address the Appellant's claim for
refund, compensation for mental agony, and punitive
damages.
CAUSE OF ACTION:
7. The cause of action first arose on 6th August 2022 when
the Appellant raised Concerns Over the delayed
completion of the Bootcamp due to unneOcessary
cancellations. It further arose on 21st August 2022 when
the Respondent failed to fulfil its commnitments regarding
syllabus completion and job placement. The cause of
action continued on 17th September 2022 when the
Appellant filed a grievance on the National Consumer
Helpline, and further on 30th September 2023 when a
legal notice was issued to the Respondent. The cause of
DR. TC. KAUSHIK 16
GovER
OAJESH
MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
Regd. No. 309
Exp, Dl. 12.12.2026
action is continuing as the Respondent has failed to
provide any redressal to theAppellant's grievances.
TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION:
8. The Appellant is a resident of Mumbai, Maharashtra, and
the Respondent operates acrosS India, including
Mumbai. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction lies with
this Hon'ble Commission. The pecuniary jurisdiction also
vests with this Honble Conmission as the total claim
amount, including compensation, exceeds the limit
prescribed for the District Commission but is within the
jurisdiction of the State Commission as per Section 47(1)
(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
a) The order for issue of Notice was being passed by the
Hon ble District Commission.
b) The Complainant was in talks with respondent
regarding the negotiation hence he held the Procedure
to server the notice.
c) The Negotiations failed and complainant chose to
serve the notice on 26th December, 2024. However,the
department denied stating that since, the next date
wait
for the matter is 31st December, 2024 he should
for the next date as respondent would not
be able to
from Tamil
reach Mumbai for on 31st December, 2024
him.
eNadu after the notice is received by
the order of
d) The Hon'ble District Commission passed
Dismissal as the notice was not been served
to the
respondent till the 31st December, 2024.
e) The Complainant is left with no other remedy against
the unfair trade practice done against him.
DR. L.C. KAUSHIK
SOVERWMEN
Regd.
UMBA
(MAHARASHTRA)
Ne. 309
Exp. QL, 12.12.2026
(AJESH 17
AION
A R
*OR.TC.WS
MAHARASTRA)
MUMA!
GO
R e g d .
oVER MMENS PRAYER:
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant respectfully prays that
this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to:
(a) Set aside the Judgement dated 31st December 2024 passed
by the Honble District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Mumbai Suburban, in Consumer Complaint No.
230 of 2023 and restore the above complaint back.
(b) Direct the Respondent to refund Rs. 70,800/- (Rupees
Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Only) paid by the Appellant
towards the course fee;
(c) Direct the Respondent to pay compensatory damages of Rs.
2, 00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) for the financial loss and
mental agony suffered by the Appellant;
(d) Direct the Respondent to pay aggravated damages of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the distress and
inconvenience caused;
AoTRIL
(e) Direct the Respondent to pay punitive damages and legal
fees amounting to Rs. 1, 00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only);
NOTARIL
(0 Award the cost of these proceedings in favour of the
Appellant;
(g) Grant any.other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper
TNOARIL
in the facts andcircumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT AS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
BEFORE ME
DR. T.C. KAUSHK DR. T. G. KAUSHIK
Mumbai ADVOCATE HIGH COURT &
(MAHARASMUMBAIHTRA)
Dated: 4 February 2025
i14 FEB 2025 OVERNWMENT
Ey.Regd.Dt 12.NY.122026309
ANDHERI (), MUMBAI-400 042
NOTARY, GOVT, OF INDIA
REGD. NO. 309
FLAT NO. C04, BLDG. NO.
ONNE BUILDING, NAHAR AMRIT11,SHAKTA
NEAR JAIN TEAPLE, CHANDIVALLe
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
ID/Seen
APPELLANT
NOTED & REGISTERED
Aadhar/ Sr. No........age N o . . .
(AJESH 18
PAN/DL /EID Book No..J...Date: 41....FEB-2025
BEFORE THE HONBLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
APPEAL NO. OF 2025
IN DR T CKUN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. CC/230/2023
ENT OF
Mr. Rajesh Poojari,
... COMPLAINANT
v/s
M/s. Guvi Greek Network Private Limited,
... OPPOSITE PARTY
AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMPLAINAT/APPELLANT IN
SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT/APPEAL.
I, Rajesh Poojari Age 26 years, Residing at 2/8, Saraswat
Niwas, Pakhare Chawl, Near Laxman Narayan Temple
Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400072, Maharashtra. do
hereby state and declare on solemn affirmation as
under:
1. ThatIam the complainant/Appellant herein and
I am aware of the facts of the case and am thus
entitled to swear this affidavit.
2. That Ihave filed this appeal against the dismissal
order for non-prosecution passed by the
Consumer Redressal commission Mumbai
oTAR DR. T.C KAUSHIK
Suburban Additional.
*GoVe ERN MUMSAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
ENT
309
o
3. That, the said appeal is filed to set aside the order
dismissal passed date 31st December, 2024 and
(AJESH,
through the contents of the same have been
reproduced hereunder, the same be treated as
forming part of this affidavit.
4. That, whatever is stated in the complaint is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and Ibelieve it to be true and correct.
5. That, Ihave annexed the true copies of respective
originals to my complaint.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai on )4 day of February,
2025
(Appellant /Complainant)
VERIFICATION
I, Mr. Rajesh Poojari of Aged 26 years, an Indian
inhabitant the complainant herein do hereby verify
that whatever is stated above is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and Ibelieve them to
be so.
Dated this 14_day of February, 2025
Place: Mumbai
(AJESM
Appellant/ Complainant
O 1 A R
* 0 R .T.C.KAUSHIK
(MAHARASHTRA)
MUMBAI
No. 319
GOVE VER WMENIE
Re1225
R A J E S H
