STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Indian Institute of Technology (IITT Jee), Corporation Office, IIIT Society, SCO No.914, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh through its M.D. Sanjay Sinha and Circle Head, Sh. Ashwani Dharia.

……Appellant/OP

V e r s u s

Ashok Singh son of Sh. Gulbar Singh r/o 106/1, Bank Colony, Manimajra through his natural Guardian his father Gulbar Singh.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Dalip K. Kataria, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2011 rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the OP/appellant to refund the deposited fee of Rs.27,000/- alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,500/- within one month, failing which it was to refund the same with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

2.                     The facts, in brief, are that the complainant opted for 2 years panther (+1) course with the OP-Institute, which was providing coaching for admission to various courses like AIEEE, JEE, AT-I and II exams, for covering syllabus of XI, XII along with comprehensive guidance for engineering, especially ITT/JEE and SAT I-II. He filled up the admission form and paid Rs.1,000/- as registration fee and test fee for admission and scholarship.  As he performed well in the test, a scholarship concession of Rs.10,000/- was offered out of total fee of Rs.62,000/- and he deposited Rs.27,000/- out of Rs.53,000/- (?) as tuition fee for the said course.  It was alleged by him that the OP hired the services of temporary teachers to impart education. Further as per the prospectus, 4 batches of 96 students, (24 students in each batch) were to be formed by the Institute but only about 20 students took admission for panther course and for rest of the courses not even a single admission was there. It was further alleged that most of the faculty namely Sh. Kapil and Sh. Pardeep Mehra left the Institute and in spite of repeated requests made by the parents, regular teachers were not appointed by the OP and whosoever was appointed he left in a very short time.  Thereafter on 2.8.2010, when his father went to deposit the fee, the OP refused to accept the same and declared to close the Institute. He along with other students approached the OP for the refund of the fee, but to no effect. However, to his utter dismay, the OP circulated a letter wherein he was informed that his name was going to be struck off from the Institute due to non-payment of the fee. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                     The OP in their written statement did not dispute that the complainant took admission in their Institute and deposited the fee.  It was pleaded that courses were started on time and the best teachers were available for imparting study to the students and that regular teachers were working with the OP. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.           Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                     After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP.

7.                     We have heard the arguments of the ld. counsel for the appellant as to whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not.

8.                     The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant/respondent voluntarily stopped attending the classes in the first session and had not deposited the fee for the second session.  He, therefore, was not entitled to refund of the amount and the order passed by the ld. District Forum, being contrary to facts, is liable to be set aside.  As against it the contention of the complainant in para 6 (page 6) of the complaint is that the OP could not run (the classes) and just wanted an excuse to close down the programme stating the delay in fee.  They blamed the students for the delay in the fee to shut down the institution.  It is even mentioned in para 12 that on 3.8.2010 the OP (i.e. the appellant) through its circle head Shri Ashwani Dharia directed the students to leave the classes and thereafter, on the next day the parents of the students hue and cried before the OP for spoiling of one year of their children.  In para 18 the prayer was made by the complainant that it was a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the OP in not taking the classes and closing down the institution and not completed the batches for students whereby they paid the consideration for coaching. It was, therefore, alleged by the complainant that after taking fee, the OP/appellant did not run the programme, closed down the Institute and refused to refund the amount taken by it.  The contention of the appellant in the corresponding paras was only that of denial. No record was produced to show if any classes were taken by the OP after 3.8.2010.  The correctness of the assertion is proved by Annexure |C-6) which is the letter issued by the OP/appellant to the complainant in which he was asked to apply for readmission by 12^th August and was told to note that the OP centre was being relocated shortly.  Annexure C-6 leaves no doubt to conclude that the centre, for which the charges were taken by the OP, had been closed.  The course was to be re-started and the OP was thinking of relocating it shortly.  The contention of the appellant that the centre was not closed was, therefore, rightly declined by the District Forum.

9.                     The complainant had also alleged that the OP/appellant did not have the faculty to teach the students; they used to hire teachers to deliver a few lectures who left the classes due to which the OP had to close down the Institute.  This contention also has been denied by the OP/appellant but no evidence was produced to suggest as to who were the teachers engaged by them. The OP did not produce any evidence to suggest if any teachers had been hired and for what period and what pay   was being given to them.  They did not produce any record to suggest if they had been taking any classes. Only these documents could prove that the OP was having some teachers to teach the students or that the classes were being taken. This evidence was in possession of the OP/appellant but has been withheld by them for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against them that the contention of the complainant was correct and the OP had no regular teachers to impart tuitions.  It was, therefore, clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the OP/appellant.

10.                  By not hiring/employing experienced teachers and closing down the centre not only caused harassment to the complainant and other students but also spoiled their precious year affecting their career.  The OP/appellant had received a sum of Rs.27,000/- from the complainant/respondent and through the impugned order it has been directed to refund the same. Interestingly, no compensation was awarded to the complainant for the harassment and the loss of precious year of the complainant.  The OP had retained the amount with it but surprisingly no interest was allowed thereon.  It is not understood as to what more lenient order the OP wanted  if it was simply asked to return the amount received by it towards fee and was only asked to pay a meager amount of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation costs. Unfortunately, the OP/appellant is still dissatisfied and has filed the present appeal.

11.                  We are, however, of the opinion that the ld. District Forum has already been soft towards the OP/appellant.  No ground is made out to admit the appeal for regular hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

18.10.2011         

Sd/-

                                               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg