DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 168 of 2010 Date of Inst:22.03.2010 Date of Decision:02.08.2010 1. Ms.Alka Khurana wife of Sh.Krishan Lal Khurana r/o H.No.1111, Sector 10, Panchkula. 2. Master Dhiraj Khurana son of Sh.Krishan Lal Khurana r/o H.No.1111, Sector 10, Panchkula. ---Complainants V E R S U S 1. FIIT Jee Limited, National Admission Office, FIIT JEE House, 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016. 2. Admission Manager, FIIT Jee Chandigarh Centre, CO No.321-322, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160035. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Yogesh Jain, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rupesh Kanwal, Adv. for OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Ms.Alka Khurana and Master Dhiraj Khurana have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.56725/- being the tuition fee along with interest @ 24% from 15.06.2009 till its realization. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Costs of litigation. 2. The case of the complainant is that OPs are running coaching courses to prepare the candidates to face entrance examinations for admission in engineering colleges. As the complainant No.2 was desirous in getting admission in IIT/Engineering College, he opted to get admission in a two years course run by OPs known as “pinnacle two year integrated programme”. He jointed the said course in the month of February, 2009 and paid Rs.59,185/- by way of demand draft of Rs.21,629/- and three postdated cheques of Rs.8400/-, Rs.11798/- and Rs.25759/- which were got encashed by OPs. The complainants also deposited a sum of Rs.8400/- for purchase of the books and study material. Complainant No.2 was allotted enrolment and registration number. According to the complainants, the classes for the “pinnacle two year integrated programme” were to commence from June, 2009. Master Dhiraj Khurana, complainant No.2 attended the classes for a few days and thereafter discontinued the studies in June, 2009 due to unavoidable circumstances. The complainants made oral request for refund of the tuition fee. Thereafter, they made repeated visits to the office of OPs and also made written request dated 01.07.2009 for refund of the tuition fee but to no effect. It has further been pleaded by the complainants that the seat vacated by Master Dhiraj Khurana has also been filled up by OPs by admitting another candidate. Ultimately, the complainants also served a legal notice dated 29.07.2009 for refund of tuition fee but to no effect. According to the complainants, non-returning of the tuition fee amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs, the facts with regard to admission of the complainant No.2 in “pinnacle two year integrated programme” course and deposit of Rs.59,185/- as tuition fee and Rs.8400/- towards books and study material have been admitted. It has been denied that any request for refund of the tuition fee was ever received. It has been specifically pleaded that to ensure quality education, uniform teaching standard and keeping in mind the interests of the students, OPs do not fill the vacant seat against any student who leave the course midway. It has further been pleaded that no student had been inducted in the batch in place of the complainant who left the course midway. According to OPs, as per clause 6 and 7 of the declaration signed by the complainant No.1, fee once paid is non-refundable. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the OP that from the letter dated 01.07.2009 and from the pleadings of the complainants themselves, it is quite apparent that Dhiraj Khurana left the Course, of his own, for his personal reasons. According to the learned counsel for the OPs, as per clause 6 & 7 of the declaration signed by the complainants, they are not entitled to the refund of the fees. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited cases titled as “Brilliant Classes Vs. Sh.Ashbel Sam, dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in revision petition No.270 of 2006 in which it has been held as under:- “On the merits of the case also we are in full agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner /opposite party that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the full refund of the fee on the plea of the institute holding irregular classes or rendering sub-standards lessons. It was his responsibility to have ascertained the details with regard to the running of the course by the institute before depositing the course fee for being enrolled”. 6. Similar view has been taken in the cases titled as Appejay Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok, I(2009) CPJ-10 (NC), Anshuman Das Gupta Vs. FIITJEE IV(2008 CPJ-4 and Bhojla Dental College and Hospital and Ors. Vs. Amandeep Singh, II(2009) CPJ-336. 7. The ratio of the cases cited above is entirely in contradiction with the ratio of case titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)” decided by the Hon'ble National Commission, wherein it has been held as under:- “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’. 6. The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. 7. This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extenso. “It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/ Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions. Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them. This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.” 8. Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.” 8. Similar view has been taken in the case titled as Sh.Atam Parkash Khatter and another Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and Others passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.13308 of 2009 decided on 21.07.2010 and in the Revision Petition No. 3926 OF 2009 titled as The Registrar, Andhra University and another Versus Janjanam Jagedeesh decided on 06.07.2010 by the Hon'ble National Commission . 9. Ratio of the aforesaid cases cited above is inconsonance with the guidelines issued by the UGC where as no notice of these guidelines was taken in the case titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Sh.Ashbel Sam (supra). Any clause in the prospectus/agreement contrary to these guidelines is of no effect. So the ratio of case titled as Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh(supra) is applicable. 10. In view of the ratio of the case cited above, the Complainant is entitled to the refund of the fees, after deducting the proportionate amount of the fees for the period the Complainant has attended the OP-institute. Non-refund of the tuition fee in the circumstances mentioned above amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. 11. So the present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant at the time of admission after deducting the following: i) Rs.1000/- as administration charges as per UGS guidelines. ii) Proportionate fees for one month i.e. June, 2009. In addition to this, the Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and litigation charges amounting to Rs.5,000/-. The OPs are also directed to return to the complainant all the original documents submitted by him at the time of admission. 12. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay the above said amount (excluding cost of litigation) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of complainant making application for refund i.e. 01.07.2009, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation mentioned above. 13. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Sd/- Announced (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) 02.08.2010 PRESIDENT Cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
C.C.No. 168 of 2010 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 22.07.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 02.08.2010 President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
