DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.101/2009

Sh. Sanjeev Gupta

24 Babar Lane Bengali Market,

New Delhi                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

FIIT JEE Limited

ICES House, 29A Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapria Vihar

New Delhi-110016                                             ….Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution        : 11.02.09           Date of Order                 :  09.06.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Case of the complainant is that at the time of taking admission by her daughter in the OP institute, he was asked to sign some papers which he was told that it was simply a formality and consequently he signed a bunch of documents within few minutes in order to facilitate his daughter to attend the coaching classes of the OP institute; that as per terms and conditions, the post dated cheques were also taken from him.  However, neither the complainant nor her daughter found the assurances given to them at the time of admission having been complied with by the OP despite repeated complaints made in this regard. The only emphasis of the OP was to complete the course hurriedly rather than being on enhancing the competence of an individual student. Therefore, the complainant’s daughter had no option but to withdraw from the coaching classes of the OP which fact was orally communicated to the OP in November, 2008 itself but, however, she was not allowed to do so. The complainant received a letter dated 15.01.09 and also a subsequent letter thereby warning him that in case the payment of the post dated cheque No.380183 dated 01.02.09 for Rs.30337/- drawn on PNB towards installment for the two year class room program of her daughter which fell due on 01.02.09 and cheque No. 380182 dated 01.02.09 for Rs.50000/- was returned unpaid for any reason he would have to pay the amount by means of a cross payee DD/pay order together with Rs.500/- each as cheques dishonour and administration charges and late fee of Rs.50/-.

According to the complainant post dated cheques were taken from him forcibly. When on receipt of the said two letters he approached the OP he was not only treated shabbily but was further threatened that in case the cheques were dishonoured he and his daughter would face prosecution U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which annoyed the complainant. According to the complainant, this amounts to deficiency in service and malafide act on the part of the OP. It is stated that the complainant’s daughter is not attending the coaching classes since November, 2008 but despite that the letter dated 15.01.09 and subsequent letter were sent to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant has already made a payment of Rs.73416/- to the OP institute towards the coaching classes/education imparted to his daughter which was not upto the mark/standard. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to return the post dated cheques taken forcibly from him by the OP at the time of admission of her daughter, to refund the amount of Rs.73416/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of their appropriation from the complainant, to pay Rs.1 lac as damages towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the aforesaid conduct of the OP institute and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the reply the OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant and his daughter had read, understood and thereafter accorded their consent to the terms and conditions contained in the declaration at the time of admission of his daughter in two year class room programme unconditionally and with free consent and thus they are bound by the same as per law.  Reliance has been placed on paras 4, 5, 9, 12 & 15 of the declaration of the enrolment form which contains the term regarding non-refund of fee for whatever reasons. It is denied that post dated cheques were taken forcibly or the complainant was threatened or treated badly by the OP at any point of time. However, it is stated that the complainant was made to understand that in the event of non-clearance of any of the post dated cheques, submitted for payment of fees, the same would amount to an offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the reply of the OP. 

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, Manager HRD has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.  

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

Additional written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the OP.

None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 07.08.15. Therefore, vide our order dated 17.02.17 we directed issuance of notice of pairavi to him at his given address for 24.04.17. Notice for pairavi issued to the complainant vide dispatch No.495 dated 09.03.17 for 24.04.17 has been served on 17.03.17 vide track report Mark A.  Thereafter, case was adjourned to 09.05.2017 again for 30.05.17 but, however, none has appeared to advance oral arguments on behalf of the complainant.

We have heard the oral arguments of the counsel for the OP and have also gone through the file very carefully. We proceed to decide the complaint on merits.

 We say without any hesitation that there is absolutely no material on the record which may even remotely suggest that the complainant had signed various documents including the declaration form in a hurry because he was told that it was simply a formality. The copy of the enrolment form containing important information for students/parents/legal guardians has been filed as Annexure OP-2 wherein the qualification of the complainant has been mentioned as CA, LLB and he is a practicing CA. Therefore, he is a highly educated person. Therefore, it cannot be believed that he had signed the papers especially the enrolment form containing the important information without going through the contents of the same.  The said declaration had been signed on 16.04.08. According to him, his daughter had attended the OP institute till November, 2008 i.e. for about 7 months. During the period of 7 months, he never made a complaint to the OP or to any other authority that he had signed the documents because he was told that it was just a formality or that the post dated cheques were collected from him forcibly. Therefore, it cannot be believed that he had given post dated cheques under any threat, pressure or coercion. He himself is a CA, LLB. Therefore, he must be presumed to possess knowledge of law. Therefore, he cannot be said to be a layman. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that he had signed the documents including the enrolment form containing the important information without going through the contents.  Para 4 & 5 of the important information specifically contain provision with regard to non-refund of the fee once paid for any reason.  It is not the case of the complainant that the post dated cheques had been encashed by the OP. Therefore, we hold that since his daughter had attended the coaching classes held by the OP till November, 2008 i.e. for about 7 months, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant now to say that the only emphasis of the OP was to complete the course hurriedly or that the coaching classes/ /education imparted to his daughter was not upto the mark/standard.

 It is, no doubt, true that the OP was not at all justified in giving a threat or warning to the complainant that in case the post dated cheques given by him were dishonoured, he will be liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This act on the part of OP was totally uncalled for, highly unjustifiable and is liable to be deprecated. However, in our considered opinion, this act does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice so far as the present complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is concerned. 

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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  09.06.17.