DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 75/2013
Sh. Joginder Singh
S/o Sh. Bhoora Ram
R/o Hargovind Nagar,
Near Balaji Mandir, Salarpur Road,
Kurukshetra, Haryana …Complainant
Versus
M/s Brilliant Tutorial Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Smt. Vasanti Neelakantan
50-C, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi and
also at 12, Masilamani Street, T Nagar
Chennai-600017 …Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 11.02. 2013 Date of Order : 01.04.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
MS. NAINA BAKSHI, MEMBER
In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that in May, 2011 he enrolled his son, namely, Master Arvind Kumar with the OP for two year IIT JEE course vide enrolment No.J2PS13DN0005 for the preparation of Competitive Examination and paid a total course fee amounting to Rs.31,321/-. Complainant’s son attended the institute of the OP but the OP closed down its institute from 15.10.11. On 18th November, 2011 he received an email from the OP stating that they had entered into a tie up with M/s Career Launchers, New Delhi to take care of the OP’s students but to no effect and no classes have started as yet. Hence, Complainant has filed this complaint for seeking directions against OP Institute to refund the paid amount of Rs.31,321/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- as cost of ligation.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the Complainant is not entitled to any refund of fee as the Complainant had voluntary agreed to the terms and conditions of the registration of the course that “the fee once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances”. Secondly, the complaint is also barred on account of territorial jurisdiction. Thirdly, Complainant does not also fall within the definition of the “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since, there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the OP it is not liable to pay anything to the Complainant. Hence, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Dr. Vasanti Neelakantan, Managing Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, Complainant’s son, namely, Master Arvind Kumar was got admitted with the OP for two year course for the preparation of Competitive Examination and paid a total course fee amounting to Rs. 31,321/-. Complainant’s son attended the institute of the OP but the OP closed down its institute from 15.10.11. Complainant’s son attended the institute of OP for only 4 month’s coaching and the child was left without coaching for a period of 16 months. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the Complainant. The term that the “fee once paid is not refundable” is not acceptable to the Forum because without providing any service to the Complainant, OP cannot be allowed to forfeit the entire fee or consideration received in advance. The term that the “fees once paid is not refundable” is unconscionable as well as voidable. OP cannot be allowed to take benefits of its own wrong. The Hindi saying “Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dante” cannot be allowed to be taken by the OP.
Complainant is a consumer. This Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the son of the Complainant had been given admission in OP’s institute at Kalu Sarai, New Delhi.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the OP’s Institute can not retain the entire fee amount. Rather, it was required to refund the proportionate amount for which the Complainant attended the coaching of the OP’s institute. In this case, Complainant attended the institute only for about four months. So, OP could deduct the fee for that period only. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and indulging into unfair trade practice and direct it to refund the proportionate amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of complaint till it is refunded as it was OP who closed down its institute without any fault/intimation to the Complainant. It is not the case of either of the parties that the Complainant stopped attending the institute of his own. Rather, it is the OP who spoiled the career of the Complainant by its act. Therefore, OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 01.04.17.
