DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 77/09
MANU Bhushan Goswami,
S/o Shri Brij Bhushan Goswami,
Minor through his mother Smt. Gita Goswami,
R/o 241, Pocket D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi – 110091 -Complainant
Vs
FIITJEE Ltd.,
29-A, Kalu Sarai, ICES House,
Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi – 110016
Through its Director -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 27.01.2009 Date of Order: 07.05.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant is that the Complainant allured by lucrative advertisement issued by the OP took admission in two years classroom programme for preparation for IIT JEE with the OP after depositing the fees of Rs. 83,058/- vide receipt dated 11.7.2006. The complainant joined the institute of OP on 13.7.06 but alleges that from the very beginning he felt that all the assurances held by the institute were merely for namesake and further the complainant inter-alia alleges various discrepancies and shortcomings including lack of not giving any feedback of progress to the parents and feeling disappointed with the services of OP, the complainant stopped attending institute from 15.3.2007. Accordingly, complainant vide letter dated 18.3.2007 to the OP highlighted the deficiencies in the services rendered by the OP and requested the OP to refund the amount of fee after deducting the proportionate amount of fee for the period the complainant had attended the classes. The said letter was duly received by the OP. This was followed by 3 letters dated 29.6.07, 10.8.07 and 27.9.08 but the complainant could not get any suitable response from the OP. Aggrieved with the non-response of the OP and pleading deficiency in service, the complainant has moved this Forum for redressal of her grievances with following prayer:
a) direct the opposite party to refund the proportionate amount of fee out of the amount of Rs. 83,058/- deposited by the complainant, after deducting the amount of fee for the period from 13.7.2006 to 15.3.2007;
- award a sum of Rs. 1 lacs towards the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his mother due to the negligent conduct of the opposite party
- award the costs of this litigation.
The case of the OP is that once the enrolment form has been filed up, signed and submitted by the Complainant and his mother, the OP in the light of the declarations made therein and in good faith, initiated certain procedures for arranging for training/classes for the son of the complainant. OP has placed reliance on Paras 5, 6, 10, 14 & 15 of the relevant declarations in the Enrolment Form, which read as under:
“Para 5: I understand 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 6: 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 FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards any other existing or prospective student.
Para 10: I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIITJEE declaration, in letter and spirit.
Para 14: I/we, the parent/guardian and/or the student, severally and jointly declare that I/we have read and understood at all clauses contained in the Declaration on Enrolment Form and agree to abide by them without any reservation or ambiguity.
Para 15: I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the FIITJEE having considered everything material, on his own sweet will after giving due consideration to rigours of time, distance and studies ahead and with the permission of the parent/guardian without any coercion from any side.”
OP has further stated that “to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the students’ interest it does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway.” It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement.
Complainant and Mother of the complainant have filed separate affidavits 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.
We have heard the counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.
Nowhere in the reply the OP has stated that it is not an educational institution nor has this fact been stated in the affidavit of the OP’s witness.
The copy of the Enrolment Form of the complainant is Ex. OP-II. It contains the important information for the students/Parents/Local Guardians. It also contains the above reproduced Paras 5, 6, 10, 14 & 15. The Enrolment Form has been signed by the complainant and his mother. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Enrolment Form. This case is squarely covered by the judgments of National Commission in Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIIT JEE Ltd. R.P. No. 4335/2014, decided on 08.12.14 and FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni in RP No. 2054 of 2013 decided on 8.10.15. If it is so, the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount of fee.
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.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 07.05.16.
.05.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
