DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 849/07
Ms. Pragya Singh
D/o Vinay Pratap Singh
R/o C-82/1, RDSO,
P.O. Manak Nagar,
Lunknow-226011 -Complainant
Vs
1. M/s FIITJEE Ltd.,
29-A, ICES House, Kalu Sarai,
Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi – 110016
(Through its Managing Director)
2. M/s FIIT JEE Limited
The Awadh School, Vipul Khand
516, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP)
(Through its Principal/Director) -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 31.07.2007 Date of Order: 24.05.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
The case of the complainant is that she joined the Coaching Institute run by M/s FIITJEE Ltd at OP-2 Institute in the month of July 2006 for a Two years Regular Programme vide Registration No. CTYLKLK2506060116. The OP-2 insisted and compelled her to deposit total fees of Rs. 83,058/- for above two years course at the time of admission. She deposited the same vide receipt dated 04.7.2006. She joined the institute of OP-2 but alleges that within a few days of attending the above course she felt that all the assurances held by the institute were merely for namesake and further the complainant inter-alia alleges various discrepancies in teaching the course. She had not been able to follow the teaching/coaching given by the respective teachers even up to the bare minimum extent, as a result she got frustrated day by day which led her to suffer from depression resulting in gradual deterioration in her studies to cope up the same. The complainant had brought the above matter to the notice of the In-charge of OP-2 institute on number of times, however, there was no improvement or any remedial action taken in the matter. This situation ultimately compelled her to discontinue the above said course within a few days of her joining there. The complainant sent a letter dated 9.11.2006 to the Lucknow office thereby requested OP-2 to refund the fee amount as paid by her. Despite that OP-2 did not pay heed to the request of the complainant. Complainant’s father visited the office of OP-2 for refund of fee and the official(s) of OP-2 assured and promised to the father of the complainant for refunding the fees shortly after some deductions. Complainant’s father made several visits to the office of OP-2 where he met one Mr. Dubey who told him that the case had been referred to Delhi office and the payment had to be made from Delhi office only and advised him to visit Delhi office and met one Col. Gupta posted there at New Delhi Office. It is further stated that the father of the complainant met Miss Seema Sood and Col. Gupta thrice at Delhi office who told that appropriate instruction had been sent to Mr. Dubey of local branch for refund of the fee, which later on turned out to be false. Father of the complainant met fourth time to Col. Gupta who promised him that appropriate action would be taken to resolve the matter on urgent basis which also turned out to be false. Again, complainant’s father visited the office of OP-1 fifth time to meet Col. Gupta and showed him copy of order of CDRC who is alleged to have tore off the copy of order. Claiming deficiency in service by OPs, the complainant has moved this Forum for redressal of her grievances with following prayer:
“a) direct the OPs to refund Rs. 83,058/- towards the fees along with the interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant and her father for undertaking number of journeys at Lucknow and Delhi office of OPs in connection with the refund of fees.
- To pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh as compensatory damages for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
- To pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards costs of litigation and Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as cost of the Notice.”
OPs have filed their reply denying the allegations and stated that once the Enrolment Form has been filed up, signed and submitted by the Complainant and his father, the OPs in the light of the declarations made therein and in good faith, initiated certain procedures for arranging for training/classes for 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.”
It is stated that the OPs to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the students’ interest do 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 reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed her 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.
We have heard the counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the record.
Nowhere in the reply the OPs have 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. OPW-III. 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 by her father. 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 judgment of National Commission in 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.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 24.5.2016
Case No. 849/07
23.5.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
