Delhi

East Delhi

CC/479/2014

NIHARIKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIJEE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  479/14

 

Ms. Niharika Gupta

Through his mother Smt. Isha Gupta

R/o 18, Kiran Vihar

Near Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092                            …Complainant

 

Vs.

 

FITT JEE Ltd.

5^th Floor, Roots Tower

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 22.05.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 21.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 21.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          Complainant Niharika Gupta has filed the complaint through her mother Smt. Isha Gupta against FIIT JEE Ltd. (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant took admission with FIIT JEE Ltd. (OP) vide ID no. CW-2423 and deposited a fee of      Rs. 2,17,119/- by way of cheques.  The classes started from the end of April, 2014.  The complainant’s mother was shocked when she saw that her daughter got so much demoralized that she had changed her stream from Science to Commerce.  She was subjected to heavy mental pressure and even had to get her treated from a neurological doctor.  She wrote a letter of dated 25.04.2014 for refund of deposited fee, however, she has not got any satisfactory reply.  Even she personally visited at the office of respondent and met to Mr. Abhishek on 26.04.2014 and personally gave a letter, but she did not get any satisfactory reply.

          She has further stated that the complainant belongs to a middle class family and has some family problem as well as some financial problem.  Her mother took the said amount on interest and paying the same till filing of the complaint.  She has only taken 3 classes.  It has been stated that conduct of the respondent was highly illegal, uncalled, unwarranted for which the complainant have suffered mental agony.  It has also been stated that there has been deficiency in service on the part of respondent, hence, the complainant have claimed an amount of Rs. 2,17,119/- alongwith 10% interest; compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply, filed by FIIT JEE Ltd. (OP), they have taken various objections stating that the averments made in the complaint were contrary to the records.  She has paid only an amount of        Rs. 60,720/- through demand draft and the remaining fee was to be deposited by the complainant.  There was no deficiency on the part of OP.  She has failed to show any non performance of any of the terms and conditions of the contract.  There was Arbitration Clause in the agreement.  They have made reference to the terms and conditions of enrollment form. 

          It has further been stated that the complainant left voluntarily.  They were willing to provide their services as per agreement.  The complainant have already stopped the payment of post-dated cheques, given at the time of admission.  Thus, she cannot ask for refund of the said amount.  They have also stated that education institutions were not providing any kind of service.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint. 

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Authorized Representative of OP, who have deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as true copy of resolution dated 21.09.2013  (Exhibit-I), copy of fee receipt (Exhibit-II) and copy of enrollment form (Exhibit-III).

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there was no deficiency on their part and the complainant have voluntarily left the admission.  He has also argued that she has only deposited an amount of Rs. 60,720/- and not Rs. 2,17,119/-, which has been claimed by the complainant. 

          It has further been argued that as per terms of enrollment, the fee was not refundable.  He has also argued that as per the law as it stands today, the complaint was not maintainable, the education being not a commodity.

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that complainant left the institute as the teaching method was not as stated at the time of admission.  He has further argued that she has only attended 3 classes  and was compelled to leave the institute due to deficiency in service. 

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of Niharika Gupta, complainant and Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal for OP.  Complainant has stated in her testimony that she deposited a fee of Rs. 2,17,119/- by way of cheques, which have been denied by Ashish Kumar Agrawal in his testimony.  He has stated that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 60,720/- by way of demand draft and stopped payment of post-dated cheques.  He has got exhibited documents as fee receipt (Exhibit-II).   From this document, it is evident that complainant have paid an amount of Rs. 60,720/-  Thus, the fact remains that the complainant have paid an amount of Rs. 60,720/- and not               Rs. 2,17,119/-.  Though, she has attended only three classes, but there is nothing on record to show that OP was not willing to provide coaching for the agreed period. 

          From the evidence on record, it is noticed that the complainant have left the classes on her own.  When she has left the classes on her own, she cannot make out a case for refund of the fee.  The law is well settled that the education is not a commodity and the service, provided by the educational institutions, is not serviced under the Act.  That being so, her complaint does not lie, which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.    

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President