DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.1230/2007

Sh. Satpal Singh

541-F, Mahesh Nagar,

Jagadhri Road, Ambala (Haryana)                              ….Complainant

Versus

FIIT JEE Limited

ICES House, Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-110016                                             ….Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution        : 22.11.07              Date of Order                 : 08.06.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

From the pleadings of the parties it transpires that the complainant’s son took admission in the OP coaching centre (India’s foremost educational institution) for IIT-JEE and paid first installment of Rs.33708/- out of total agreed fee of Rs.62922/- through a demand draft and a post dated cheque of Rs.29214/- dated 01.11.2007 for second installment. However, the complainant’s son did not attend the classes and asked the OP to refund Rs.33708/- but, however, the OP did not return the same.

 Now, according to the complainant, his son had got admission in the OP institution on the assurance that in case his son would get admission in another institute including the Gurgaon College of Engineering, the OP shall refund the amount of Rs.33708/- to the complainant.  Hence, the non-refund of the said fee by the OP to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence,  the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to refund Rs.33708/-, to handover the post dated cheque, to pay interest @ 18%  on the amount of Rs.33708/- from the date of payment till the date of actual payment to him, Rs.30,000/- towards damages and mental agony etc. and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.

On the other hand, the case of the OP is that at the time of admission, the complainant’s son and the complainant’s elder son had signed the enrolment form and declarations contained therein after understanding the same and had given their consent to the terms and conditions as contained therein without any coercion or undue influence and hence in view of the specific provisions contained in  the terms and conditions regarding non-refund of the fee the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the fee. OP has denied that it had promised/assured to refund the fees to the complainant.

In the rejoinder the complainant has inter-alia stated that his elder son had not signed the declaration form containing terms and conditions clauses.

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.

Oral arguments have been heard on behalf of the parties. We have gone through the file very carefully.

The OP has filed the copy of the enrolment form containing the declarations as Ex. OPW-III. The same is in two parts. First part is enrolment form and the second part is a paper containing important information for students/parents /legal guardians. The enrolment form has been signed by the complainant’s son and his legal guardian Harpal Singh. However, to our amusement the second part has not been signed by Sh. Harpal Singh, the legal guardian of the student. Therefore, it does not bind the complainant. However, at the same time the OP has also filed a copy of Annexure-D wherein the declaration 5 has been reproduced which reads as follows:

“Declaration 5:  In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity, that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be, not is it adjustable towards any other existing courses at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched not towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student.

Declaration:

                   I/We the Parent/Legal Guardian and/or the student hereby severally and jointly declare that I/we have read and understood all the clauses contained in the Declaration on the Enrolment Form together with the above amendment and agree to abide by them without any reservation or ambiguity.

I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the CRP-1 (course) having considered everything material and on his own sweet will with the permission of the parent/guardian without any coercion from any side.”       

We mark it as Mark A for the purposes of identification.  The complainant has also filed a copy of Annexure-D. We mark it as Mark B for the purposes of identification. Therefore, the authenticity of the said document cannot be disputed on behalf of the complainant.  From the reading of the Declaration 5, it becomes clear that the fee once paid was not refundable at all for any reason. Therefore, the complainant is bound by the said declaration signed by Sh. Harpal Singh, the legal guardian of the student. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the OP was justified in not refunding the fees of Rs. 33708/- to the complainant. Validity of post dated cheques must have expired due to efflux of time. Accordingly, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

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   08.06.17.