Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 70.
Instituted on : 27.01.2021
Decided on : 30.07.2024
Anil Rohilla age 51 years, s/o Sh. Dhanpat Singh, r/o H.No.1632, Sector-2, Rohtak(Hry.).
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Aakash Institute, Kundu Plaza, Plot no.3, Gali no.2, Opp. Chhotu Ram Stadium, Sonipat Road(HRY) 124001, Rohtak through its Director/Manager.
- Aakash, Tower, 8, Pusa Road, Head Office/Regd. Office, New Delhi-110005 Through its Managing Director.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he got admitted his ward namely AsmitRohilla at the Institute of respondent no.1 for two years integrated course for NEET/AIIMS course run by respondents for the session 2018-19 and 2019-20 at Rohtak. The complainant had paid a total fee of Rs.183626/- for two years course vide receipt No.020RCC/E1800852 dated 10.04.2018 & 020RCC/A1815825 dated 13.01.2019 including security amount of Rs.5000/-. The ward of the complainant could not continue in 2nd year of the course as his scoring went down in 1st year due to non-standard coaching provided by the respondents and could not find the aforesaid course provided by the respondents as satisfactory. The quality of teaching/coaching was not satisfactory and upto the mark for which the respondents assured the complainant. Hence the complainant decided to discontinue the aforesaid course. Complainant requested the respondents to de-register his ward and refund the fees of Rs.183626/- which he had paid in advance for two years course. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, the respondent no.1 failed to refund the fee received by the respondents in advance for the aforesaid course. The respondents did not return the fees for the second year for which the complainant’s ward did not avail any services of respondents’ institution. After a great persuasion, respondents only refunded a meagre amount of Rs.34562/- instead of Rs.183626/-The respondents are under legal obligation to refund the whole fee in lieu of the second year in which the ward of the complainant did not receive any services of the respondents. The act and conduct of respondentsis illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to refund the remaining amount of fee charged by the respondentsalongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit to till the date of actual payment. Respondents may also be directed to pay Rs.200000/- on account of deficiency in service, Rs.50000/- on account of physical and mental harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that complainant applied for scholarship test held by the opposite party on 08.04.2018 for his son AsmitRohilla and later approached the opposite party with a request for admission of his son with a two years medical program. Asmit got 33% concession in tuition fee on the basis of scholarship test. The complainant accepting the terms of the admission, got his ward admitted in the two years integrate course for NEET/AIIMS run by the respondent for the session 2018-19 & 2019-20. It is further submitted that the opposite party imparts coaching for providing NEET/JEE papers and not for the 11th standard of education. The wife of complainant made written request on 01.04.2019 requesting to refund the amount of Rs.71614/- as her ward had not cleared the 11th standard. On receipt of her request, opposite party had refunded the amount of Rs.24400/- plus Rs.5000/- as security deposit through NEFT dated 15.05.2019. The complainant again approached the office of opposite party for reconsidering the case of his son for refund. The opposite party taking the lenient view and without admitting any liability further refunded the amount of Rs.10112/-. It is further submitted that the total number of days for which the course runs/continues is 780 and total tuition fee of this course is INR133812/-. The complainant’s ward attended classes for 354 days. So he has utilized INR60730/-. The tuition fee paid by the complainant is INR85170/- so after subtracting the fee utilized by the complainant from the tuition fee paid by the complainant, it comes to Rs.24440/-(Rs.85170/- less Rs.60730/-). The same has been credited in the account of complainant on 15.05.2019. Opposite party has also refunded the amount of Rs.10122/- including the security deposit of Rs.5000/-. It is wrong that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.149064/- or any other amount. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 26.05.2022.Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 andclosed his evidence on 14.12.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.183626/- on account of fee of his ward Asmit for two year integrated course for NEET/AIIMS with the opposite parties. As per the complainant, the quality of teaching/coaching provided by the opposite parties was not satisfactory, due to which the score of son of complainant got down. So he decided to discontinue the aforesaid course in the 2nd year and requested the opposite parties to refund the fee. But the opposite parties have only refunded the amount of Rs.34562/-(Rs.24440/-+Rs.10122/-) to the complainant and has withheld the remaining amount. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that the son of complainant had availed the services of opposite parties for one year. Hence the complainant is not entitled for whole amount. The amount of Rs.34562/- has already been refunded to the complainant. However, at the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that opposite party is ready to pay an amount of Rs.55000/- to the complainant. In this regard it is observed that the total fee deposited by the complainant was Rs.183626/- for 2 years course. As the son of complainant availed the services of opposite parties for one year, so he is not entitled for refund of whole amount. But as he discontinued in the 2nd year so he is entitled for half of the fee paid by him i.e. Rs.91813/-. But the opposite party has only paid the amount of Rs.34562/-. Hence he is entitled for remaining amount of Rs.57251/-but the opposite parties offered an amount of Rs.55000/- at the time of arguments The complainant refused to accept the said amount and has contended that the alleged amount was not paid by the respondent despite his repeated requests since the year 2020. So he suffered a great mental agony & harassment and was compelled to file the present case. In view of above facts it is observed that due to non-refund of remaining amount by the respondents, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to refund the 2nd year fee to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.57251/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand two hundred and fifty one only)alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.01.2021 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
