Delhi

East Delhi

CC/478/2014

RAJAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIJEE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.478/14

RAJAT GUPTA

THROUGH HIS MOTHER

R/O 18, KIRAN VIHAR, NEAR KARKARDOOMA,

1.  

 

Vs

 

FIIT JEE LTD.

5.  

DISTRICT CENTRE LAXMI NAGAR

1. •  

Date of Institution: 22.05.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 19.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 20.02.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

ORDER BY: Mr. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)

JUDGEMENT

Complainant Rajat Gupta, took admission with FIIT JEE Ltd., vide student ID No.CW4870 by depositing an amount of Rs.2,62,723/- by way of cheque. The officer/teacher assured to the mother of the complainant that her son will get better marks in his school and institute was bound to keep in mind that school study of student will not suffer. Classes started from the end of April 2014, mother of the complainant was shocked when she saw that her son was so much demoralized that he was unable to concentrate in his study. She wrote a letter to the respondent for refund of fees. She did not get any satisfactory reply. She personally visited and met Mr. Abhishek, however, she did not get any satisfactory reply. When she did not get any satisfactory reply, she stopped payment through post dated cheqes. The complainant got only three classes. Thus, it has been stated that conduct of the respondent was uncalled, unwarranted, and against natural justice. It has been stated that there was deficiency on the part of OP. Hence, she has claimed for refund of Rs.2,62,723/- with 10% interest, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation charges.

In the reply of FIIT JEE Ltd., (OP) have stated that that the complainant has paid only Rs.49,940/- and have not deposited the total fees as alleged in the complaint and there was no deficiency on their part. It is stated that the complainant left voluntarily, they were still willing to provide their services as per agreement. She herself stopped the payment through post dated cheques, they could not ask for refund of the amount. The complainant does not fall under the category of consumer because the Educational institution was not providing any kind of services.

Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant where she controverted the pleas taken by respondent and have reasserted his plea taken in the complaint.

The complainant has examined herself where she has deposed in her affidavit and narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

In defense FIIT JEE Ltd., (OP) have examined Shri Ashish Kumar Aggrawal, who has deposed on affidavit the facts stated in the written statement, he has also got exhibited the copy of the resolution as Ex. OPW I, a copy of the Enrollment Form as Ex. OPW II.

We have heard the 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 as the son of complainant himself withdrew from the classes.

 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant was under pressure and he was entitled for refund of the fees.

If we look into the complaint as well as the evidence on record, it is noticed that the complainant has not made it clear as to how much payment has been made to the respondent, though, they have stated that she has stopped payment of post dated cheques. On the contrary, it has been stated on behalf of OP that complainant has made the payment of Rs.49,940/- only and he has withdrawn himself from the coaching voluntarily. The law is well settled, when he has left the classes on his own he cannot make out a case of refund of fees. The education is not a commodity and private educational institutions are not covered under this Act. That being so her complaint does not lie, it deserves dismissal and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost. 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

(Dr.P.N.TIWARI)                                                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                  

      MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER      

 

 

                                         (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                PRESIDENT