Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/49/2017

Nikhil Saini (Minor) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allen Career Institute - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Lakhotia Adv.

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	49 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	11.01.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	21.09.2017

 

 

 

 

Nikhil Saini (minor) through its Guardian/Father Sh.Yash Pal Saini, resident of GHS-92, F-11, Sector 20, Panchkula.     

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Allen Career Institute, through its Centre Head, Plot No.808, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

2]  Allen Career Institute, Corporate Office at “Sankalp”, CP-6, Indra Vihar, Kota (Rajasthan) 324005

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by: Sh.Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for complainant

 Sh.T.S.Grewal, Counsel for OPs

  

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant – Nikhil Saini got admission in Coaching Centre of Opposite Party No.1 for JEE (Main + Advanced) Nurture Phase-1 Course and paid a lump sum fee of Rs.1,20,000/- on 1.4.2016 to OPs for course of One Year (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the complainant attended the coaching of OPs from 6.4.2016 to 2^nd week of July, 2016  (Annexure C-2 & C-3).  It is averred that the complainant being successful in getting admission in Indo Swiss Training Centre (ISTC), Sector 30-C, Chandigarh deposited the fee with said Centre on 28.7.2016.  It is also averred that the complainant intimated about his admission with ISTC to the OPs and sought refund of his balance fee of Rs.80,000/- as he had attended the coaching with OPs only from 6.4.2016 to 2^nd week of July, 2016 and thereafter, no coaching was given/taken by him. However, when the complainant visited the OPs for getting the refund, the same was flatly refused.  Then, the complainant send legal notice to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.80,000/-.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant is not entitled for refund of fees as he has utilized the services of the OPs for professional studies for more than 3 months, got complete study material etc.  It is also stated that the Opposite Parties cannot be made liable to suffer for the fault of the complainant as after studying for more than 3 months approx.. and utilizing the services of OPs, the complainant asked for refund of fees on baseless ground.  It is also stated that the complainant and his father, both signed the declaration on challan cum receipt (Ann.C-1) paper while getting admission with the Opposite Parties and thereby agreeing to abide by the refund rules of the institute. It is also stated that the complainant is not a consumer.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed replication reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

6]       The complainant admittedly attended the coaching for JEE Course in Allen Career Institute/OPs with effect from 6.4.2016 to 2^nd week of July, 2016 i.e. about for 3 months only.  The complainant has, however, paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as lump sum fee for One Year.  The stand taken by the OPs against the refund of fee to the complainant on the basis of contractual liability as envisaged in the Information Bulletin (Ann.C-6) is not legally viable being the same in violation of provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872.  Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is reproduced below:-

11.    Who are competent to contract.—Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.

 

7]       As per provisions stipulated in Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, only a major i.e. a person who has attained the age of 18 years is competent to contract.  The complainant herein is a minor and as such, the terms & conditions whatsoever in the Information Bulletin, issued by the OPs containing conditions regarding refund of fee etc., are not binding on the complainant. The complainant applied and attended the coaching classes.  The father of the complainant being natural guardian though has signed the Receipt, but that is not sufficient enough to defeat the claim of the complainant for refund of balance fee.  

 

8]       The OPs have provided coaching to the complainant only for about 3 months and as such, the complainant is legally entitled for reimbursement of balance fee of Rs.80,000/- out of Rs.1,20,000/- which had been paid as lump sum fee to the OPs for the coaching for One Year. 

 

9]       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, have 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.

 

10]      Keeping into consideration the above facts, the act of the Opposite Parties for forfeiture of whole of the tuition fee of Rs.1,20,000/- of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on their part, which cannot be acquiesced.  The complaint, as such, is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the balance fee amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

        

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs 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 Parties shall also have to bear additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant. 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st September, 2017   

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER