DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

  Case No. 136/12

Ashok Kumar Hooda

S/o Sh. Harke Ram Hooda

R/o H.No. 192/21, Hooda Farms

near HAFED FEED PLANT,

Ladhot Road, Sukhpura, Rohtak, Haryana                -Complainant     

                                      Vs

1.  M/s FIITJEE Ltd.,

     Through its Managing Director

     29-A, ICES House, Kalu Sarai,

     Sarvpriya Vihar,

     New Delhi – 110016

2.  The Centre Head

     FIIT JEE Delhi North-West Centre

     Punjabi Bagh, Delhi – 110026                              -Opposite Parties

                                           Date of Institution: 04.04.2012                                                   Date of Order:        01.07.2016

Coram:

N.K. Goel, President

Naina Bakshi, Member

S.S. Fonia, Member               

O R D E R

S.S. Fonia, Member

        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his son Ajay Hooda got enrolled with OP-2 for IIT-JEE exam coaching in July 2010 in 1 Year Extended Class-room Program-Regular Week Contact Classes.  For the said coaching program the course fee to be paid was Rs. 72,798/- and fee to be paid for books and study material was Rs. 6,000/-.  The complainant made payment as per following details:

                                                    Total Rs.78,803/-

Out of above PDC for Rs. 22,616/- vide cheque No. 887599, this cheque was stopped before it could be encashed by  the OP for the reasons that the complainant realized that his son was not whole heartedly ready to pursue the coaching programme run by the OPs.  Thus, practically the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.56,187/- to the OPs.  The complainant further states that after attending hardly 3-4 classes the son of the complainant lost confidence in himself . On the pretext of feeling insecure about this coaching the Complainant withdrew his son’s admission from the institute run by the OPs and made a request to the OP to refund the deposited fee after deducting the reasonable amount of Rs.1000-2000/- but the OPs outrightly refused to refund the deposited fee even when the complainant had decided not to avail the services provided by the OPs.  Blaming OPs for grave deficiency in service for their refusal to pay the deposited fee even after withdrawing his son’s admission after attending 3-4 classes and also making various allegations against the OPs the Complainant has moved this forum for directing the OPs to refund Rs. 56,000/- with 18% interest from     the      date     of      withdrawal    of    admission till   actual payment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost.

        OPs have denied all the allegations in their reply and have mainly contested the complaint on the ground of following clauses in the declaration of the enrolment form which were made and agreed to by the complainant:

“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.

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 FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards any other existing or prospective student.

I   promise   to    abide   by all rules and        regulations of FIITJEE declaration, in letter     and spirit.

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.

I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the FIITJEE 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.  Further I/We understand that the student is required to work hard to attain the average standard of the batch allotted in order to cope up with studies and put in extra efforts if lagging behind in any subject/topic.”

OPs have further reiterated that the OPs to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the students’ interest do not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway.  Accordingly, they have prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

        Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

        Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal, Sr. Manager HRD has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

        Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

        Though the OPs have relied upon various judgements of the National Commission/State Commission but have mainly relied upon the latest judgment of National Commission in RP 3673 of 2013-  FIITJEE Ltd. and Nitish Aggarwal dated 7.4.2016.  The complainant has relied upon the judgment of National Commission in the case of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Sh. Parmod Panwar in RP No. 30/2008 wherein the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697 has been relied upon.

        We have heard the arguments of both the parties and carefully examined all the record placed before us.

        Now, we straightway advert to the issue whether the relief prayed for is admissible or not?

        Three points arise for consideration are whether the OPs were deficient in rendering services, whether the complainant has furnished the undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions of the admission particularly with regard to the non-refund of fee has been tendered without any coercive tactics or by fraudulent means and thirdly whether the OPs have filled up vacancy caused by vacating the course in mid term by the complainant’s son?

        Having carefully examined the material placed before us we find that the complainant has himself stated in the complaint that his son was not whole heartedly ready to pursue the coaching programme.  We also do not find any evidence to suggest that the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the undertaking or he signed the undertaking under duress wherein one of the conditions is unequivocally stipulated that “I or my parents/guardian shall have no claim for refund of fees”.

        The complainant in his rejoinder has not adduced any evidence contrary to the undertaking furnished by him to the OPs before seeking admission of his son in the institution of OPs.  On the other hand, OPs have reiterated that vacancy created by exit of students midway has not been filed by them. Therefore, there is no unjust enrichment to the OPs.

        The judgment relied upon by the complainant specifically proving out his case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697 deals with refund of fee for the duration of the course for 2 years whereas the issue before hand is pertaining to seeking refund of fee for joining the course for one year that too one year extended class room programme.  Therefore, the judgment cited by the complainant is not directly applicable with the facts of the case of the complainant.  On the other hand, the OPs have cited latest judgement of National Commission dated 7.4.16 in the matter of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Nitish Aggarwal in RP No. 3673 of 2013 wherein ratio-decidendi of the same Commission in the matter of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni, RP No. 2054 of 2013 has been held to be relevant to the present facts of the case wherein the complainant’s son had left the one year course midway.  In the said judgment, the National Commission has inter-alia categorically held that “if a student leaves the course midway he would not be entitled to refund of money provided the seat has remained vacant”.

        In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

         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.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                          (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                     (N. K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

Announced on      01.07.2016

Case No. 849/07

23.5.2016

Present –   None 

            Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                 (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                             (N. K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT