DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.416/2014
Sh. Gautam Saha,
S/o Late Sh. N. C. Sahra
R/o 1168, Sector-C,
Pocket-I, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070 ….Complainant
Versus
FIITJEE Ltd.
FIITJEE House
29-A, Kalu Sarai,
Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.11.14 Date of Order : 02.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OP through advertisement in the daily newspaper represented that they are best institute in class as such believing the representative of OP, that the CBSE and additional module of class XIth will be completed by October, 2012 and revision test will take place till March, 2013. The assurance made by the representative of OP, complainant got his son enrolled with the OP for Two Years Weekend Course starting from April 2012 vide enrollment No. 1152111240165 and paid entire course fee amounting to Rs.1,87,928/- in advance by DD/PDC drawn on State Bank of Travancore. It is stated that in the first year i.e. 2012 the classes were held at Laxman Public School, Hauz Khas, New Delhi after the school’s daily own classes was over at 3.30 p.m. It is stated that in peak summer, it was very difficult to attend the classes as there was insufficient light or fan, although fees was taken with the commitment of AC classroom. Verbal request were made by the complainant as well as his son to staff of OP number of times but OP did not pay any heed to the requests and problems were not resolved, and complainant and his son had to tolerate many such difficulties considering education and future of Master Rhichik Saha. It is submitted that after the said verbal complaints the teachers of the institute started having a grudge against his son and many other students and the teachers started humiliating his son. There are instances where his son was scolded and reprimanded by the teachers by stating that “ Why don’t you understand such simple issue? How much marks you got in admission test”. After humiliation infront of all other students his son was scared to ask any question and the said act badly damaged the moral of the students. It is further stated that there was discrimination between regular school students attending the classes in different school in Delhi and students residing in the FIITJEE hostel. The second year (2013) the classes were shifted to Shikha Bhawan, I, II Siddharth Chamber at Kalu Sarai. It was found that the students were cramped in a very small room, wherein there was very humid as the A.C. did not work or was of insufficient capacity. The classes took place in tall narrow multistory building with very narrow broken stair case wherein even basic facility was not available, risking the life of the students. The complainant was feeling frustrated with the attitude of the institute and was forced to stop his son going to institute from June 2013. On 15.10.13 the complainant gave the complaint in writing to the OP for refund of the amount paid by him. The complainant received a communication dated 07.03.14, where the OP rejected to pay the lawful dues. The complainant sent a notice to the OP which was duly served but OP choose to remain silence and neither reply was received from the OP nor amount claimed was paid to the complainant. 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 pay a sum of Rs.1,87,928/- towards the fees paid by the complainant .
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- incurred towards the tuition fee @ Rs.10,000/- per month from July 2013 till March 2014.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental harassment to the complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay interest @ 18% p.a. till the time of payment of the amount.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
OP has inter-alia stated that complainant’s son got registered in the Pinnacle Two Years Integrated School Programme for IIT-JEE and appeared in the admission test conducted by the OP. The complainant’s son declared successful in the admission test and was enrolled for the said course vide enrollment No.1152111240165. It is stated that till date OP is ready and willing to provide its esteemed service to the complainant as per agreed terms and conditions. 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 stated that the complainant has signed the enrollment form after pursuing the classes in the enrollment form where it was categorically averred that “I understand that if I leave the institute before completion the course for any reason whatsoever”. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service in quality of classes conducted by the OP. The said allegation is nothing but a total misuse of process of law to substantiate its case against the OP. Infact the fault was on the part of the complainant’s son only who was unable to put his effort and toil in preparing for the IIT Entrance examination. It is further stated that no student has left the course in midway except the complainant’s son. Thus, the allegations of deficiency are bald and bogus. It is stated that in the enrollment form the complainant has undertaken that if it leave the course in midway for any reason, he should not be entitled for refund. It is denied that the student was under any kind of stress due to FIIT teaching module. It is further submitted that complainant is blowing and hot and cold at the same time as except complainant’s son every other student had been regularly attending the classes and enlightening them with the fruits of education.
It is further stated that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the observation of the Hon’be Supreme Court in the case titled as P.T. Koshy Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held, that education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1886 as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIIT JEE. It is stated that OP till date is ready and willing to provide the esteemed services to the complainant as per the agreed terms and conditions.
It is stated 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 his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Asish 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 record.
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 not proved this by any form of evidence. The fact also remains unrebutted that the vacancy created by leaving of the student midway 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.
In view of aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we hold that OP has committed unfair trade practice by collecting fees for two years in one go. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct OP to refund the 10 months fees taken by them from the Complainant towards the fee for two years duration as the complainant left the OP’s institute himself after attending more than 1 year classes. Accordingly we direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs.70,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant.
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.70,000/- 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 02.01.19.
