Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/348/2023

S K VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AAKASH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	348 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	06.07.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	01.10.2024

 

 

 

 

Mr.S.K.Verma s/o Mr.Mahendra Pal Verma, r/o 3002, SBI Officers Society, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh -160047.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Aakash Educational Services Limited through its Competent Authority, No.111, 8^th Cross, Paramount Gardens, Thalaghattapura, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore-560062.

2]  Aakash Educational Services Limited through its Competent Authority, SCO No.367-368, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160034.

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by:    Sh.Yaman, Representative of Complainant (through VC).

Sh.Chetan Gupta, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that on 19.04.2023, he had contacted OP No.2 for admission of his daughter namely ‘Sanu Verma’ for the tuition classes for 9^th & 10^th Class. The complainant was attended by one Jasprit Kaur, Counselor and thereafter complainant was asked to pay Rs.2,000/- towards security and Rs.30,091/- towards the tuition fee being first installment of the total fee for the two years course. The amount was paid by the complainant through credit card. The complainant was asked to visit next day with his daughter for classes, 15 minutes in advance, being first day for collection of study material and dress etc. as the classes had to be commenced from 4.00 PM.

    It is stated that on the very next day i.e. 20.04.2023 at 3.40 PM, the complainant alongwith his daughter visited OP No.2 and asked the person available there for study material, but the person misbehaved the complainant. The complainant immediately rushed to meet Ms.Jasprit Kaur, who had assured the best services at the time of collecting money. As there was no cooperation from her and other employees of OP No.2 and there was misbehavior by the persons of OP No.2 with the complainant, the complainant decided not to continue with the OPs for tuition of his minor child. The complainant had given a written request to the OP to refund the money immediately vide his letter dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure C-2) but to no avail. The complainant had also issued a legal notice dated 11.06.2023 (Annexure C-3) to the OPs demanding the refund of Rs.32,091/- alongwith interest, but all in vain. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund Rs.32,091/- paid for tuition along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

 

2]       The OPs have filed reply and took preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as complainant’s son being a student does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’.

    On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it is stated that complainant approached the OP for getting admission of his daughter in Two Year Integrated Classroom Course for Olympiads, NTSE & Class IX & X and at the time of admission, OP informed and discussed everything related to class timings, syllabus, fee structure, terms & conditions and refund policy of the course at length with complainant and his daughter. It is stated that details of the admission form were verified by the complainant through OTP on his mobile and complainant took admission on the basis of the terms & conditions of the admission form and refund policy (Annexure R-1 & R-2), hence, the complainant is bound by the terms of the policy.

    It is further stated that terms and conditions of the admission form signed and accepted by the complainant and his daughter has an arbitrational clause wherein it has been specifically stated that in the event of any disputes or difference arising between the parties, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. It is stated that complainant has approached this Commission without availing the remedy of arbitration, hence, the present complaint is not maintainable.

    It is further stated that complainant submitted the refund application on 20.04.2023 and same was duly processed by the OP and issued two cheques, i.e. cheque No.219017 dated 12.06.2023 amounting to Rs.20,085/- and cheque No.219142 dated 12.06.2023 amounting to Rs.2,000/-, in favour of the complainant as per agreed terms & conditions and refund policy, but the complainant flatly refused to accept the same and filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to extract illegal money. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their written version. 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the representative of complainant & learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       During arguments, it is admitted that complainant has received refund amount of Rs.22,085/- from the OPs during the pendency of the complaint but OPs have not refunded the remaining amount.

7]       In the present complaint, there is no dispute that the complainant’s daughter has not attended any coaching/tuition class of the OPs. When the complainant’s daughter has not availed the coaching/tuition services from the very inception of the course then complainant is entitled to refund as no services have been provided to the complainant by OPs. In the present complaint, OPs have neither rendered any services to the consumer nor refunded his amount which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

8]       By not refunding the fee to the complainant, the OPs have also acted in defiance of the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)”, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

“5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’.

6.   The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal.

7.   This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extenso.

“It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.

The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/ Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

 

Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.

                 This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.”

8.   Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.”

9]       The OP is not an accredited academic institution affiliated with any Board or University and is merely a Coaching Centre for providing Coaching to the Students, in the fields of Medical Entrance Exams and IIT-JEE and Foundation courses, who aspire for admission to Medical/Engineering Colleges. The OP undoubtly is in dominating position and as such maneuvered to get the signature of parents of students on pre-settled printed enrollment undertaking. The parents under duress sign such undertaking with an anxiety to get his pupil admitted for best coaching to enable him/her for better performance in the competitions for admission to high ranked medical/engineering/technical institutions/universities.  This is nothing but an emotional exploitation and cannot be acquiesced. If any child, after enrolled with the OP institute, withdraw himself from the course, for the reasons whatsoever, he cannot be penalized by way of forfeiture of his entire money, which has been deposited by his parents with such coaching centre.  The Coaching Centres are entitled legally to charge fee only for the services, which they actually provide to the student and not more than that.

10]      In the light of above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with directions to the OPs to refund the remaining amount of Rs.10,006/- minus TDS to the complainant alongwith lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum thereafter.

11]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.10.2024                                                      

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER

as