DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.537/2010

Sh. Amar Nath Prasad

through legal guardian Mr. Binod Kumar Shah

Chandni Chowk, Raj Nagar,

P.O. Raj Nagar, Madhubani,

Bihar-847235                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

FIIT JEE Ltd.

ICES House

Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-110016                                                ……Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution          : 11.08.10                                                             Date of Order        : 06.10.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that he was admitted to the coaching institute of OP under two year class room programme (regular) - for preparation for admission in IIT and deposited Rs.1,34,897/- towards coaching fees through various demand drafts and in cash. Complainant discontinued the coaching classes after three days as the standard of the teaching was not as good as promised by the representative of OP at the time of admission and he decided to withdraw from the coaching classes and informed the OP for the withdrawal from the institution and requested to refund the money paid in advance to the OP vide letter dated 26.06.10. The OP vide letter dated 29.06.10 informed him that they will not refund the advance fee paid to them as he had signed the declaration that once the fees is paid will not be refunded.  He had also cancelled the payment of the post dated cheques issued to the OP as he was not interested to continue the classes. Hence, the intention of the OP was malafide from the beginning therefore  there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Complainant has  prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.66511/- as the fee paid in advance with 18% interest till the realization of the payment, Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, torture and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation and miscellaneous expenses.

OP has filed written statement and contended inter-alia stated that the Complainant got registered in the two year class programme (regular) and appeared in the admission test conducted by the OP. The Complainant was declared successful in the admission test and consequently got himself enrolled for the aforesaid course vide enroll No. 11511020560 dated 08.06.10. The OP has further reproduced following relevant declarations agreed to by the Complainant:

“Para 6:       I understood 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.

Para 7:        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 FIIT JEE or any yet to be launched nor towards any other existing or prospective student.”

Para12:       I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIITJEE declaration, in letter and spirit.

Para 17:      I/we, the parent/guardian and/or the student, severally and jointly declare that I/we have read and understood all clauses contained in the Declaration on Enrolment Form and agree to abide by them without any reservation of ambiguity.

Para 18:      I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the FIITJEE having considered everything material, on his own sweat will after giving 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.”

It is stated that the OP ensures quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the student interest does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leave the course midway. Complainant is restrained from dragging away his feet from the contract. Accordingly OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          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 behalf of the OP 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?

          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 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.

          It is evident from the record that the Complainants paid Rs.134897/- but  after withdrawal of the admission the Complainant cancelled the apymetn of post dated cheques issued in favour fo the OP as he did nto want to continue the classes wtihthe OP. in the prayer the Complainant prayed to refund the Rs.66511/- paid in advance alognwtih 18% interest till its realization. Hence, it is clear that the Complainant had made the payment for one year fees.

          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.

Announced on 06.10.16