DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.589/2012
Sh. Balbir Singh Lamba
S/o Sh. Lakashmi Chand Lamba,
R/o H.No.761, Sector-04, Urban Estate,
Rewari (Hr) ….Complainant
Versus
Administrative Manager,
FIIT JEE Limited
FIITJEE House
29-A, Kalu Sarai,
Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 06.11.12 Date of Order : 01.02.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant got his son, namely, Aksu Lamba admitted with the OP for “One year Class Room Programme” for the session 2012-13 vide enrollment No.125104182080412001 by depositing Rs.43,079/- through demand draft on 12.04.12. At that time her wife also delivered post dated cheque from the cheque book bearing nos. 047476 to 047481. It is stated that as the complainant is an Army Personnel and remains out and on coming to know from his wife about the deposit of huge amount of fee with the OP, he had discussed with his family members and his superior and it came out from discussions that it was not feasible for the ward to join the course with the OP. It is submitted that the complainant made an application on 14.04.12 to the OP through his wife for refund of amount. Similar request was made through letters, email and telephonic message to the OP for refund of fees but there was no response from the OP. It is submitted that thereafter complainant got served a legal notice dated 21.04.12 to the OP and also made a complaint to the Department of Consumer Affairs, 12-A Jangpura House on 09.05.12 but no heed was paid by the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to refund Rs.43,079/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund and Rs.50,000/- as causing mental agony, harassment, conveyance, telephone expenses and litigation besides Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee and other expenses.
OP has inter-alia stated that son of the complainant (Akshu Lamba) took admission in One Year CRP Weekend Contact Classes on 12.04.12, vide enrollment No.1252111230110 and was to deposit a sum of Rs.1,11,619/- including Rs.6,000/- for study material and Rs.11,618/- as service tax. The complainant deposited two DDs for a sum of Rs.43,079/- and 6 PDCs of Rs.74,540/- were returned by the bank unpaid as the payment was stopped by the complainant. It is submitted that the course started on 14.04.12 and the same day after the admission process was closed and thereafter the wife of the complainant moved an application for refund stating the reason “that the son of the complainant went hostile and depressed and bluntly refused to attend FIITJEE and + 2 side by side.” As the complainant’s son withdrew voluntarily from the course he opted to pursue and now demanding the refund of the fees which is not refundable as per terms and conditions of the Enrollment Form which had been signed by the complainant and his son. While seeking admission/ registration with the OP for One Year Extended Classroom Program for IIT-JEE Weekend Contact Classes, the complainant and his son have read and understood and thereafter accorded their consent to the said terms and conditions without any coercion or undue influence. The complainant and his son have countersigned and signed respectively various declarations. Thus, by signing those declaration, both of them have accorded their unconditional and free consent and are thus bound by them, as per law. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to show any non-performance of any of the term and condition of the contract on the part of the OP. The terms and conditions of the enrollment form reads as under:
“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.
Para 19: 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 or ambiguity.
24. I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIIT JEE declaration, in letter spirit.
It is submitted that the OP to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the students interest does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway. In the present case, no vacancy was filled once the complainant’s son stopped attending the classes. Hence, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a replication to the written statement of OP and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar Agarwal, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also carefully gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed copy of the information booklet which we mark as Annexure-A for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of Reminder-I dated 19.07.12 written by CPIO/Dy. Director (Coop.), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs (CGRC) to the Administration Officer of OP which we mark as Annexure-B for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 11.06.12 regarding refund of admission fee which we mark as Annexure-C for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 15.05.12 written by Section Officer (CGRC) to the Administration Officer of OP which we mark as Annexure-D for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 09.05.12 written to Section Officer (CGRC) by the complainant which we mark as Annexure-E for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 28.04.12 written to the bank for stoppage of payment of PDC which we mark as Annexure-F for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 14.04.12 sent to the OP for refund of fee which we mark as Annexure-G for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of Enrollment Report Cum Acknowledgement receipt dated 12.04.12 which we mark the same as Annexure –H for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copies of DDs for an amount of Rs.37,079/- and Rs.6,000/- which we mark as Annexure-I for purpose of identification. The complainant has filed copy of legal notice dated 21.01.12 which we mark as Annexure-J for purpose of identification.
Admittedly, the aforesaid undertakings given by the Complainant at the time of admission debar the Complainant from seeking refund of the fee. As regard the deficiency in service by the OP, the Complainant has himself stated that it was not feasible for the ward to join the course with the OP and he withdrew voluntarily from the course with no fault on the part of the OP. The fact also remains unrebutted that the vacancy created by leaving of the student is not filled up by the OP.
Both the parties have relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission and other courts. We have taken the ratio of decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 wherein it was held that
“it must be mentioned that during arguments, it was pointed out to us, that some education institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institution was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer.
In our considered view, an educational institution can only charge prescribed fee for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream”.
In similar facts Hon’ble NCDRC in Jaipreet Singh Kaushal Vs. FIIT JEE and Anr. has allowed the complaint and directed refund of part fee which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the SLP filed by OP was dismissed.
It is clear from the record that the complainant has deposited Rs.43,079/- with the OP against the total fee of Rs.1,11,619/- including Rs.6000/- for study material and Rs.11,618/- towards service tax on 12.04.12. The complainant requested the OP on 14.04.12 for refund of amount. The complainant’s son had not attended even single class of OPs.
In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant would suffer financial loss in case the OP be allowed to forfeit the entire amount deposited by the complainant. As the complainant requested the OP to refund the fee before starting the classes and the complainant’s had not attended even single class of OP, it would be just and proper if the OP be directed to refund the deposited amount after deduction of necessary directions.
Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.25461/- (Rs.43,000 minus Rs.6000 towards study material and Rs.11618/- towards service tax.
We do not award any amount towards compensation and litigation expenses as the complainant himself after depositing the fees, requested the OP to refund the fees.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.25,461/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
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 01.02.19.
