Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/616/2017

Amit Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allen Career Institute - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Garg Adv.

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	597 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	30.01.2018

 

 

 

 

Joginder Chauhan, r/o # 1853, Second Floor, Sector 21, Panchkula.

                              …..Complainant

Versus

Allen Career Institute through its Director/Manager.

Address I: SCO NO.354-355, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh UT 160022

Address II: SCO 275, Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana.

Address III: Plot No.808, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, UT 160002

Address IV : “Sankap”, CP-6, Indra Vihar, Kota, Rajasthan 324005

                          ….. Opposite Party

 

[2]

Consumer Complaint  No	:	616 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	16.08.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	30.01.2018

 

 

 

Amit Gupta, R/o # 30, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.   

                               …..Complainant

Versus

Allen Career Institute through its Director/Manager.

Address I: SCO NO.354-355, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh UT 160022

Address II: SCO 275, Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana.

Address III: Plot No.808, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, UT 160002

Address IV : “Sankap”, CP-6, Indra Vihar, Kota, Rajasthan 324005

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                 

 

 

For Complainant :    Sh.Anuj Garg, Advocate

For OP (s)      :    Sh.T.S.Grewal, Advocate

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

            By this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two consumer complaints in which similar questions of law and facts are involved with little difference of date of joining, fees paid and classes attended.  

2]       The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No.597 of 2017 – Joginder Chauhan Vs. Allen Career Institute”.

 

3]       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he got admitted his daughter namely Mehak Chauhan with OP Institute for preparation of XI Medical Stream. The complainant had deposited full fee for entire year in one go amounting to Rs.1,04,550/- with Opposite Party on 10.12.2016 (Ann.C-1). It is stated that at the time of admission, the Opposite Party had promised that each student of the institute will be given personal attention and personal doubt sessions will be made available for the weak students, but the daughter of the complainant repeatedly asked teachers and management of the Opposite Party that she was not understanding the topics.  It is averred that the daughter of the complainant was facing lot of difficulties in understanding the topics and she was getting afraid of attending the classes of the Opposite Party.  It is also averred that the daughter of the complainant attended the classes only upto March, 2017.  The complainant at the assurance given by the Opposite Party even shifted her daughter from OP's Chandigarh Centre to Panchkula Centre.  It is further averred that even at the Panchkula Centre of the Opposite Party the daughter of the complainant faced lot of problem.  It is submitted that the complainant being worried for his daughter’s career searched for new teachers, but found that those teachers had their separate fee structure, whereas the complainant is a man of limited resources.  It is also submitted that the complainant many a times demanded refund of the fee, made several visits and representation, followed by legal notice (Ann.C-3), but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

 

4]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the admission of the complainant’s daughter and receipt of fee, has stated that the daughter of the complainant had studied with it for seven months from Dec., 2016 till June, 2017 as per attendance sheet  (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that the refund policy of the Opposite Party says that the first refund will be provided within one month from the date of admission and the Opposite Party has duly informed the complainant that he is not entitled for complete refund of the fee because the time for getting the refund has already been over, which is after one month of getting admission.  It is also stated that the complainant is not a consumer qua Opposite Party as defined in Consumer Protection Act.  It is submitted that no request for refund was made by the complainant, as alleged.  All other allegations have been denied and pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

   

5]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OP made in its reply.

 

6]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

8]       It is admitted that for the preparation of XI^th medical stream, the complainant got admitted his daughter with OP Institute against the payment of Rs.1,04,550/-.  It is stated by the complainant that payment of tuition fee for the whole year in advance was the pre-condition of Opposite Party.

 

9]       It is the outcome of the pleadings and arguments submitted by the ld.Counsel for the complainant that being left with no other option, the complainant under constraint, deposited the tuition fee for the whole year in one go with the Opposite Party. 

 

10]      It is the allegations against the Opposite Party that the services of the Opposite Party were not found upto the mark as no doubt sessions or extra guidance was made available to the student/daughter of the complainant, when opted to get the same. It is also argued that no proper coaching was provided by the OP as was agreed while taking admission. It is further the grouse of the complainant that the Opposite Party badly failed to fulfill the large promises made at the time of admission, thus, rightfully claimed for the refund of the amount.  It is claimed that the Opposite Party did not refund that amount despite many representations made orally or otherwise and also despite service of legal notice upon it. 

 

11]      We are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party in the present complaint not only rendered deficient services, but also indulged itself into unfair trade practice. It is observed that it is a dictatorial move of the Opposite Party, who firstly forced the complainant to pay the entire fee in advance for the whole year and then indirectly pressurize the student putting her in dilemma as either to continue with its deficient services least her whole fee shall be forfeited in case classes are discontinued.

 

12]      One thing  which Opposite Party must keep in mind that the sole purpose of the students to join these private coaching institutions is only to get an additional help to make him/her understand the subject in a better way and to prepare them to do well in the competitive examinations.  As there is no barometer to adjudge the quality of services provided by these type of coaching centres/institutes so it solely depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the pupils/students studying therewith, who with their own experience, can adjudge the quality of services provided to them.  The very purpose of joining these coaching centres/institutes is defeated once it is found that the quality of service, as agreed or promised, is not made available to the students.  Similarly, in the given complaint, it is the only grouse of the complainant that his ward was not given the services upto the mark or as per the promises made at the time of admission. In our considered opinion, the student(s) should not be pressurized to continue with the deficient services as would only result in sheet wastage of precious time of a student(s) besides the annihilation of the hard earned money of the parents (complainant).

 

13]      In the present case, the Opposite Party committed a grave deficiency in service in not providing the proper services and has also indulged itself into unfair trade practice by withholding the fee for the unutilized period as the daughter of the complainant withdrew from Opposite Party’s institute. The Opposite Party has no right to retain the fee of any student for the unutilized period for which the services have been abandoned by the student, thus it is the liability of the Opposite Party to refund such an amount to the student without any delay.

 

14]      While deciding the present complaint, we are well guided by the decisions of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1336 of 2008 – Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, decided on 7.11.2008 as well as in Revision Petition No.813 of 2009 – Sehgal School of Competition vs. Dalbir Singh, decided on 30.4.2009, while considering the matter on identical facts, wherein it is held that the institute is unfair and unjust in retaining fee even after the student withdrew from their institution, and issued mandate for refund of money of the student for the period they have not attended the classes/institute. As such, the objection raised by the Opposite Party that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ is not tenable.

 

15]      Keeping into consideration the discussion above, it is concluded that the act of the Opposite Party for forfeiture of whole of the tuition fee of Rs.1,04,550/- of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on its part, which cannot be acquiesced.  The present complaint, as such, is allowed with directions to the Opposite Party to refund the balance fee amount of Rs.78,412/- to the complainant (for the unutilized period), along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

        

16]      Similarly, the connected consumer Complaint No.616 of 2017 -  Amit Gupta Vs. Allen Career Institute, also stands allowed against the Opposite Party with directions to the Opposite Party to refund the balance fee amount of Rs.74,587/- (out of total fee of Rs.99,450/-) to the complainant, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  If the order is not complied within the above stipulated period, the Opposite Party shall also have to bear additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- each payable to the complainants. 

 

17]      A copy of this order be placed in connected Complaint No.616 of 2017 -  Amit Gupta Vs. Allen Career Institute., which shall be deemed to form a part of that order.

                                                           

            The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th January, 2018                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER