Delhi

South Delhi

CC/91/2013

KAMAL JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT-JEE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/91/2013
 
1. KAMAL JAIN
WARD NO. 4 RANIA TEHSIL, RANI DISTT SIRSA OF HARYANA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FIIT-JEE LIMITED
29-A KALU SARAI, SARVAPRIYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110016
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  N K GOEL PRESIDENT
  NAINA BAKSHI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
none
 
For the Opp. Party:
none
 
Dated : 25 Jan 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Kamal Jain                                    Vs.                             FIIT Jee Limited

 

25.01.2018

Present :      None for the complainant.

Shri Pushpit Bansal Adv. for the OP.

 

Matter has been kept pending till 12.15 PM. None had been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 20.10.2015. Therefore, we directed issuing notice of pairavi to him on 30.10.2017 for 18.12.2017. Notice sent to the complainant vide dispatch No. 2502 dated 10.11.2017 was duly served upon him vide track report mark-A. None appeared on behalf of complainant on 18.12.2017 as well.

We have heard the counsel for the OP and have also gone through the file.

It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had deposited total Rs.1,08,935/- towards part payment of the fees of two years classroom program for IIT JEE regular week contact classes on or about 08.02.2012. However, the complainant did not attend the classes and wrote a letter dated 17.04.2012 to the OP to refund the amount paid by him but as usual OP did not refund the amount.

Now the contention of the OP in this regard is that in view of the terms and conditions contained in the Enrollment Form duly signed by the complainant and his father which is binding upon them and also as the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant through out the period, Complainant is not entitled to any refund. Copy of the Enrolment Forum is filed as OPW-II.

We have been taken through Paras 6, 7, 21, 22, 26 of the terms and conditions of contract which inter-alia stipulate that fee once paid by a student to OP is not refundable.

Secondly as held in FIITJEE Ltd vs. Harish Soni - revision petition No. 2054/13 decided by the National Commission on 08.12.2015 if the seat vacated by a student remains vacant, the student shall not be entitled to seek refund.

Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to 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 25.01.2018.

 
 
[ N K GOEL]
PRESIDENT
 
[ NAINA BAKSHI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.