DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.307/2011
Mr. Sanjay Choudhary
S/o Sh. Sampat Raj Jain
R/o Plot No.104, Gunrock Enclave,
First Floor, Secunderabad ….Complainant
Versus
Mr. D. K. Goel
Founder and Chairman
FIIT JEE
FIIT JEE-House, 29A,
Kalusarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 30.08.11 Date of Order : 01.10.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that Complainant’s son Sh. Siddharth Choudhary joined OP’s institution at Saifabad branch, Hyderabad for pinnacle two years integrated school programme for the course IIT JEE after qualifying the admission test. At the time of joining the OP has informed that the classes will be started in the month of June, 2010 and directed him to pay total fee of Rs.233128/- for the two years course before the date of joining. He paid total fees of Rs.233128/- on various dates as detailed in the complaint between 30-4-2010 to 22-6-2010. His son attended the classes for sometime where he found deficient service and sub-standard coaching and he could not adjust to the course with the poor quality. He informed the OP about the inability to continue the course. The OP assured that they will give good teaching but OP failed to stand on their promise. Complainant’s son was given due permission by the OP to withdraw from the course on 12.7.2010 but while returning the certificates, the opposite party addressed a letter that issue of refund of the course fee is at the discretion of opposite party. The complainant was compelled to sign such letter as the Complainant required the original documents to join another institution but the opposite party did not take any steps to return the amount. Complainant sent a legal notice on 29.10.2010 but the OP did not settle the matter. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP the complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to return a sum of Rs.233128/- to the Complainant,
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.1 lac to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony,
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant future interest @ 18% per annum,
- Direct the OP to pay cost of the proceedings to him.
OP has filed written statement and stated that the son of the Complainant himself withdrew voluntarily from the course to pursue and demanded the refund of the fees which is not refundable as per the terms and conditions of the enrolment form which had been signed by the Complainant and his son. The OP has reproduced the following relevant declarations agreed to by the Complainant and his son:
“Para 6: I understand that if I leave the institute before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including transfer of parents/guardians/ill health of self or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/engineering college etc., or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc. I or my parents/guardian shall have no claim for refund of fees.
Para 7: In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be nor is it adjustable towards any other existing courses at FIIT JEE or any yet to be launched nor towards any other existing or prospective student.”
Para No.12 I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIIT JEE declaration, in the letter and spirit.
Para No.17 I/We, the parent/guardian and/or the student, severally and jointly declare that I/We have read and understood at all clauses contained in the Declaration on Enrolment Form and agree to abide by them without any reservation or ambiguity.
Para No.18 I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the FIIT JEE having considered everything material. On his own sweet will after giving due consideration to rigours of time, distance and studies ahead and with the permission of the parent/guardian without any coercion from any side.”
OP has stated that OP to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the student’s interest does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Accordingly OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No rejoinder to the written statement has been filed.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal, has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.
We straightaway come to the question, whether the relief is admissible to the Complainant as prayed for?
The aforesaid undertakings given by the Complainant at the time of admission debar the Complainant from seeking refund of the fee. As regards the deficiency in service by the OP, the Complainant has not proved this by any form of evidence. The fact also remains unrebutted that the vacancy created by leaving of the student midway is not filled up by the OP. We have taken the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 wherein it was held that “ it must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some education institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institution was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our considered view, an educational institution can only charge prescribed fee for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream”. Moreover, in its written arguments, in the penultimate para, OP has submitted as under:-
“It is further submitted that the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled FIITJEE Vs. Dr. Mrs. Minathi Rathi (R.P. No.3365/2006) categorically held out as follows: “We are, therefore, of the considered view that respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner/Institute could not have charged full advance fees for two years and could have charged prescribed fees for one semester/year. In the instant case, since Petitioner/Institute do not follow the semester system, they could only have charged advance fees for one year. In view of these facts, the Respondents are entitled to get refund of the fees after deducting the non-refundable service tax for the unattended second year of the course.” However, in the instant case the son of complainant enrolled for two year course and deposited fee for one year only, hence, the complainant is not entitled to refund of fees and the complaint deserve merit dismissal.”
In this case the Complainant on behalf of his son deposited 2 years fee and not one year fee.
In view of aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the view expressed by us hereinabove, we hold that OP has committed unfair trade practice by collecting fees for two years in one go. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct OP to refund the half of the fees taken by them from the Complainant towards the fee for two years duration.
Accordingly we direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs.1,16,564/-towards 50% of the tuition fee paid by the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its realization and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,16,564/- 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 01.10.16.
