DATE OF FILING                    :     25.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      24.09.2014,

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     22.06.2015.

Shri Protim Biswas,

son of Sri Prakash Chandra Biswas,

being represented by his guardian,

Shri Prakash  Chandra Biswas,

residing at 131, Salkia School  Road, Salkia,

District Howrah,

PIN 711106.  ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  EDUDIGM Education Services Pvt. Ltd.,

  having its centre at 20^th floor,

  20B, Everest House, 46  C,  Chowringhee  Road,

  Kolkata 700071, and also at

  147/1 A/2A, Girish  Ghosh Road, Belurmath,

  Howrah – 711202. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.

   

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

   

               Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                                 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

              Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).         

   

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

  1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner,Protim Biswas, praying for a order directing the o.p. Edudigm Education Services Pvt. Ltd. to refund his course fees amounting to Rs. 26,218/- and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he being a student took admission in the two years, class room programme of the o.p. who provides education services to the students for sitting Joint Entrance Examination. The petitioner in order to sit atWBJEE Test paid a sum of 5,618/- on 31.3.2014 and took admission in two year programme from 2014 to 2016 and he took Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics.On 07.07.2014 the petitioner paid Rs. 12,360/- to the o.p. by chque no. 548103 being amount for study material and also paid Rs. 8,260/- through cheque no. 548104 being amount for 1^st installment of the programme.The class started after one month and also the classes were not up to the mark to meet the standard of the joint entrance examination and also the teachers were unaware and inefficient about the medical entrance examination and the o.p. failed to handover study materials. So due to  dissatisfaction the petitioner took decision that he would not continue classes and as such requested the o.p. to refund the fees of Rs. 26,218/- for utilizing the same money in another institution. The o.p. told that they would not refund the fees and so this case was filed by the petitioner as the service provider being  the o.p. here failed to provide service as per the need of the petitioner and so the case.

3. The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the material allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986 and the instant application is liable to be dismissed. The o.p. further submitted that imparting educational values by way of assistance by tuition and mentoring various students for appearing any competitive examination is not providing service and the case filed by the petitioner alleging irregularity and lacuna in the teaching also not tenable.They further submitted that the petitioner took admission in the year 2014-16 covering subject likePhysics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics and the petitioner could appear in both medical and engineering examinations. The subject Biology is taught by Dr. Moumita Sen, who is a post graduate from IIT, Bombay, and graduate from Presidency College, Kolkata, and just attending two classes and guessed standard of the highly qualified teachers is too much for the petitioner.Actually they received Rs. 6,218/- towards admission and enrolment charges and Rs. 20,000/- towards 1^st installment fees. Just attending two classes and commenting on deficiency in service is unbelievable as the student was not of a high profile one as could be noted from his 1^st and 2^nd term result of Liluah Donbosco School. The o.p. is a reputed organization preparing students for Joint Entrance Examination and other competitive examinations and the petitioner does not come under the purview of the consumer and not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

4. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form ?

2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?

3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

    

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

    

5. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion. In support of his case the petitioner Protim Biswas filed an affidavit along with documents that he was admitted in the learning programme and he also filed documents that he paid a sum of Rs. 26,218/- being amount for admission for two years programme from 2014 – 2016 and paid Rs. 5,618/- for admission and Rs. 12,360/- being the amount for study materials and also paid Rs. 8,260/- being the amount paid for 1^st installment of the programme and this is also the admitted case of the o.p. The petitioner also filed the document showing the refund policy of the o.p./ Edudigm wherein it is laid down  that for the Arjuna Classroom Mentoring Program there is no refund for the 1^st installment after commencement of the classes at a given centre even if a student has not attended any of the classes. It is also mentioned that for the successive installment paid, if a student wishes to shift to Eklavya Distance Learning Programme then the refund shall be done after having the required adjustments. In the instant case the petitioner paid the admission fees on 31.3.2014  for the two years Arjuna Class Room Mentoring Programme amounting to Rs. 5,618/- and he also paid  Rs. 12,360/- for study materials on 07.7.2014 and on the same date he also paid Rs. 8,260/- being the amount for the 1st installment of the programme. However, in the refund policy it is clearly mentioned that there is no refund for the first installment after the commencement of class  and it is  evidently clear from the case of the petitioner as well as from his affidavit that he attended the classes  and found the standard not up to the mark and also teachers were unaware and inefficient about the medical entrance examination. This Forum scrutinized the case records along with oral and documentary evidences and kept in mind the submissions of the ld. counsels of both sides and the present provisions of law and find that when a student voluntarily leaves the education institution being a tutorial home  as in the instant case there is no deficiency in service on the part of that educational institution so as to entitle the student for refund of fees already paid by him for the period even if he did not receive any instruction.  In the instant case the petitioner not only got himself admitted in the o.p. institution but also attended classes and thus he booked a seat in the institution and now praying for refund of fees and same would certainly cause loss to the institution as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the institution who was always ready and willing to impart lessons to the student. In the instant case, it is  also noticed that the student left the institution on his own volition and attended another institution.  Thus this is  a  case wherein there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. against whom the petitioner prayed for refund of fees. In the decision laid down by the Andhra Pradesh  State Commission as well as our National Commission wherein it is clearly laid down that when a student voluntarily withdraws from any institution then the institution is not  liable to refund the fees as there is no deficiency in service.  

     

              In view of above discussion and finding the  Forum finds that the petitioner is not entitled to get refund as prayed for and also the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim as the issues went against him.

    

              In the result, the application fails.

    

              The court fees paid is correct. 

    

         Hence,

                       O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 469 of 2014 ( HDF 469 of 2014 )  be  dismissed  on contest without   costs.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.