Orissa

Cuttak

CC/121/2018

Tapan Kumar Sarangi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman,FIIT JEE Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P C Mishra & associates

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.No.121/2018

 

Sri Tapan Kumar Sarangi,

S/O:Sri Golok Chandra Sarangi,

Vill/P.O:Gotara,P.S:Mahanga,

Dist:Cuttack,by profession a Govt. Servant,

 At present residing at Govt. Quarter

No.IV-B-3012,P.O:Kharabela Nagar,

Dist:Khurda.                                                                    ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. M/s. FIIT Jee Ltd.,FIIT JEE HOUSE,

29-A,Katu Saral,Sarvapriya Vihar,

(Near Hauz Khash Bus Terminal),

New Delhi-110016, represented through

Its Chairman.

 

2.   M/s. FIIT Jee Ltd.,Cuttack Centre,3^rd floor,Kailash Plaza,(OPP to B.S.N.L) Bhawan

        Link Road,Cuttack-753012.                                          ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     17.12.2018

Date of Order:    02.06.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. P.C.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :        Mr. Dilip Kumar,Adv.& Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                          

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that his son, Sarthak Sarangi passed out 10^th Class(HSC exam) by securing 96.20% and was admitted for +2 science at the DAV Public School,C.D.A,Cuttack.  In order to build up the carrier of his son, he as well as his son wanted to have future carrier as an engineer for which he intended to undergo tutorial/coaching centre for appearing JEE in order to secure a seat at IIT/NIT/NISER/ISER etc.  As per the advertisement of the O.Ps, the complainant and his  son  went to the O.Pno.2 on 16.4.18 and he had deposited a course fee of Rs.82,300/- through NEFT and cheque.  The complainant had also submitted post-dated cheques for a sum of Rs.1,39,401/- in favour of O.P no.1 and his sister concerned i.e O.P no.2.  The son of the complainant had attended demonstration coaching classes on 22.4.18,23.4.18,29.4.18 &30.4.18 and thereafter his son had discontinued coaching with the O.Ps due to his transfer outside Cuttack as well as it was of the opinion of his son that teaching pattern of the O.Ps is of sub-standard quality.   The complainant thereafter had applied to the O.P no.1 through his e.mail address on 12.7.18,15.7.18 & 16.8.18 for refund of his advance amount as deposited towards coaching fees of his son, since because his son had finally discontinued the coaching and thereafter had blocked the post dated cheques as given by him to the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.1,39,401/-, in order to prevent misuse of those cheques.  The complainant had requested to the O.Ps to deduct 10% out of the money  paid by him to the O.Ps amounting to Rs.82,300/- and refund the rest amount to him but the O.Ps had turned deaf ear towards the request of the complainant inspite of his several persuasions to that effect.  It is therefore the complainant had approached this Commission seeking refund of a sum of Rs.74,070/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 18.4.18 to 30.11.18 and accrued interest also till realisation as well as to refund the unutilised cheques amounting to Rs.1,39,401/-.  The complainant has further prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment alongwith his litigation expenses and for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.  The complainant in order to prove his case has filed some documents and rejoinder affidavit.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version.  According to their written version, they admit about the son of the complainant being admitted to their coaching centre and about the payment of the course fees of 40% out of total fees of course fees amounting to Rs.1,86,800/-.  They stated about attending of the classes by the son of the complainant but not demonstration class on 22.4.18,23.4.18,29.4.18 & 30.4.18.  They also admit about the discontinuance of coaching by the son of the complainant and the claim as made by the complainant towards refund.  According to them, the complainant was transferred and his son did not attend the classes for which the son of the complainant did not want to continue with them.  Hence, they have refuted the allegation of the son of the complainant to the effect that there was substandard teaching was imparted by them.  They have further contended that the coaching fees as deposited while admitting a student is not refundable, if in case the student quits the coaching centre on the midway.  It is further stated by the O.Ps that the complainant’s son preferred for two years CRP JEE(Advanced) week end contact classes.  Accordingly, the O.P admitted him in that class.  It is contended by the O.Ps that the complainant as well as his son were well aware of the terms and conditions of their institution before enrolling in the institution and had entered with an agreement with them.  It is stated by the O.Ps that they had  categorically and specifically made clear to the complainant at the time of admission that as per the terms and conditions of the enrolment, fees once paid would not be refunded under any circumstances and the complainant as well as his son had given undertaking to that effect also.   It is stated by the O.Ps that they only admit meritorious students who qualify in the entrance examination, which was conducted by them and they also impart quality education by appointing highly qualified faculty members, who imparts quality of teaching.   It is further contended by the O.Ps that in order to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard, they do not fill up the vacancy that which is created in the event of any student quits the course midway and the said  seat remains vacant throughout the programme.  It is stated by them that the seat vacated by the complainant’s son remained vacant throughout the course duration in order to maintain the quality and uniformity.  Thus, as per the O.Ps, they are entitled for the fees of the programme and the complainant is not entitled to get refund of it.  It is further averred by the O.Ps that it is a self-finance and self-managed institution which runs through the fees collected from the students.  Most of the expenditures are incurred in advance and also is of fixed nature.  The O.Ps have to bear the expenditure like Lease rent of the premises, salary of faculty members and non-faculty staff, electricity and other allied expenditures, prepapration and printing of study materials etc. irrespective of number of students and batches at all the branches throughout India.  It is contended that neither the complainant nor his son had ever raised any objection to the teaching quality of the O.Ps.  Hence, it is contended by the O.Ps that there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

          The O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents as well as evidence on affidavit in order to prove their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments in complaint petition and that of written version in this case, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.        Whether the complaint case is maintainable?

ii.         Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

          iv.         Whether the O.Ps had adopted any unfair trade practice?

v.          Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues No.iii & iv.

          For the sake of convenience, issues no.3 & 4 are taken up together first for consideration in this case.

          It is a fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.82,300/- to the O.Ps towards the course fee of two years CRP JEE (Advanced) Weekend Contact Classes of his son.  The complainant also had given post-dated cheque amounting to Rs.1,39,401/- to the O.Ps for the entire course fees for two years as per the demand of the O.Ps.  The complainant’s son is a meritorious student and he had secured 96.20% in HSC examination.  The complainant’s son had attended four number of classes conducted by the O.Ps.  Thereafter, due to the transfer of his place of posting, he requested the O.Ps to refund  course fee of his son of Rs.82,300/-. However, at a later date after postponement of his transfer, his son did not agree to attend the classes conducted by the O.Ps on the ground that the coaching classes imparted by the O.Ps are of below standard and he would not get any benefit by attending the same.  Hence, the complainant number of times had requested the O.Ps to refund the course fees amounting to Rs.82,300/- after deducting 10% as his son attended four numbers of demonstration classes but not regular classes as alleged by the O.Ps.  The complainant had also deposited post-dated cheques amounting to Rs.1,39,401/- towards rest of the course fees of his son.  The complainant blocked payment of the said cheques to the O.Ps as his son was not interested to pursue the course offered by the O.Ps.  The O.Ps have admitted that the son of the complainant is a meritorious student as they  themselves had given scholarship to him by deducting Rs.92,797/- from the course fees.   As per the O.Ps, the total course fees is payable by the complainant is Rs.1,86,799/- which includes GST on course fee @ 18%.  This calculation has been made after deduction of the scholarship of the complainant’s son amounting to Rs.92,797/-.  The O.Ps alleged to have executed an agreement with the complainant and his son during admission.  But no such copy of the agreement has been filed by them.  The O.Ps have filed Enrolment Form, which contains only declaration/undertaking by the complainant and his son. The O.Ps have charged Rs.28,305/- towards the infrastructure cost fees.  The O.Ps in their written version has given a tabular form of fees calculated on different heads.  In that tabular particular as well as in the information sheet and in the “Enrolment Report” filed by the O.Ps there is a heading towards” infrastructure cost fees”.  The O.Ps in their version at page-9, para-11 & 12 also have clarified the utility and purpose of taking fees of  different account/heads  where, they have not whispered any word as to the expenses towards the infrastructure cost fees.  The O.Ps have also not explained to the complainant as well as before this Commission as to why they had charged infrastructure cost fees from the complainant.  No declaration/undertaking has been made by the complainant and his son to pay such fees.  Hence, the complainant is not liable to pay the infrastructure cost fees.   The course fees is Rs.1,86,799/- as per the statement and the enrolment report filed by the O.Ps.  The complainant as well as the O.Ps have filed receipt/acknowledgement, which reveals that at the First instance, course fees of Rs.82,300/- was collected by the O.Ps  and thereafter the complainant on demand had paid Rs.1,39,401/- to the O.Ps by way of post dated cheques, which cheques were subsequently blocked by the complainant.  Hence, the O.Ps had charged Rs.2,21,701/- towards the course fees in an arbitrary manner instead of charging Rs.1,86,799/-.  It reveals from the “Enrolment Report” filed by the O.Ps that they have withheld of receiving excess amount towards the course fees.  Thus, it is presumed that the O.Ps have not filed their version in clean hand.

However, at this juncture it is relevant to place the pertinent decision relating to the issue in hand of the Hon’ble National Commission which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.The Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dt.14.11.2017, passed in R.P.No.918/2015, in the case of Jaipreet Singh Kaushal Vs. FiitJee Limited & another has held that the couching Institution cannot charge advance fees for next year.  Challenging the said order FiitJee had filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No.(S)16105/2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the said SLP filed by FiitJee Ltd.  So in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the O.Ps cannot collect advance course fees for the next year i.e. 2^nd year. But the complainant is liable to pay the course fees for one year and his plea of sub-standard teaching by the O.Ps and no fees is payable by him is not acceptable being not substantiated by any cogent evidence to that effect and as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission as referred above, the complainant is entitled to get only 50% of the course fees.

          Thus, in view of the discussions and observation made above, it is held that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and had adopted unfair trade practice by collecting the advance fees for one year and excess course fees as well as by not refunding the said fees inspite of repeated request of the complainant. 

 

Issue no.i,ii & v.

          As per the version of the O.Ps, the course fees for two years is quantified as Rs.1,86,799/- for the son of the complainant including the tax component.  As discussed above, the infrastructure cost fees of Rs.28,305/- is to be excluded.  Thus, the course fee is Rs.1,58,494/- for two years and the O.Ps are entitled to receive half of the fees for one year, which is quantified as Rs.79,247/-.  The O.Ps have already taken a sum of Rs.82,300/-.   Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.3,053/- from the O.Ps with interest thereon from the date when such dues were recovered from the complainant.  The O.Ps are also liable to refund the cheques, which are with them without encashment issued by the complainant amounting to Rs.1,39,401/- to the complainant.

          In view of the above, the complainant has definite cause of action to file the case and his case is maintainable.  Thus, the complainant is entitled to the relief.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

          The case is allowed partly on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps, who are jointly and severally liable here in this case, who are thus directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,053/- alongwith 12% interest thereon from 30.11.18 till the payment is made alongwith a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony of the complainant and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation cost of the complainant. The O.Ps are further directed to refund the cheques, which are with them without encashment issued by the complainant amounting to Rs.1,39,401/- to the complainant.  This order is to be caried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          Order pronounced in the open court on the 2^nd day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                  Member

 

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President