DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM II
Udyog Sadan C 22 & 23 Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi 110016.
Case No.151/2010
Smt. Sneh Lata
Bungalow No.18 Type V Flat No.10
Telangkhedi Road
Civil Lines Nagpur 440001 ….Complainant
Versus
M/s FIIT JEE Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Mr. D. K. Goel
ICES House Kallu Sarai
Sarvapriya Vihar New Delhi 110016 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 11.03.10 Date of Order : 02.07.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel President
Ms. Naina Bakshi Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia Member
O R D E R
Sh. S. S. Fonia Member
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that her daughter Ms. Anisha Prakash was admitted to the coaching institute of OP under two year class room programme weekend classes on 09.05.09 and total fee of Rs.1 24 609/ was paid on various dates vide enrolment No.1152110910295. She states that on the very first day of her study session she found that the building in which the class rooms were located was not only shoddy but also very congested and without proper arrangement of ventilation and the OP kept on shifting from one building to another as per their convenience. Making various other allegations regarding standard of studies the daughter the Complainant decided to discontinue from attending the classes as she experienced inability to continue her studies. Accordingly the Complainant wrote a letter dated 24.12.09 to the OP for refunding the amount paid by her but the OP did not bother to refund the amount. Feeling dejected from non responsive attitude of the OP she sent a legal notice which also failed to invoke any response from the OP. Accordingly pleading unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP Complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum to redress her grievances and prayed for awarding a sum of Rs 2 49 609/ as under:
I) Refund of amount : Rs.1 24 609/
i) Physical pain and mental agony : Rs. 15000/
ii) Loss of study and time : Rs. 25 000/
iii) Miscellaneous : Rs. 10 000/
iv) Harassment : Rs. 50 000/
v) Litigation expenses : Rs. 25 000/
Total : Rs.2 49 609/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of written complaint to the OP i.e. 24.12.09 till its realization with cost.
OP has filed written statement by maintaining that the OP ensures quality education and uniform teaching standard and also keeping in mind the student interest does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leave the course midway. The OP has further reproduced following relevant declarations agreed to by the Complainant and her daughter:
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 12: I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIITJEE declaration in letter and spirit.
Para 17: 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 18: I/We further declare that the above named student is admission in the FIIT JEE 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 parents/guardian without any coercion from any side. Further I/We understand that the student is required to work hard to attain the average standard of the batch allotted in order to cope up and put in extra efforts if lagging behind in any subject/topic.
Hence it is stated that the Complainant is restrained from dragging away their feet from the contract. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Accordingly OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed her 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 arguments on behalf of the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
We straightaway advert to the issue whether the relief is admissible to the Complainant as prayed for?
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 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 half of the fees taken by them from the Complainant towards the fee for two years duration. In her affidavit the Complainant has given up the details of the amount paid by her to the OP towards admission of her daughter as follows:
Admission Fee : Rs.16 545/
Examination Fee : Rs. 4 412/
Tuition Fee : Rs.66 180/
AITS GMAR RTPF Fee : Rs. 4412/
Infrastructure Fee : Rs.22060/
Books and Study Material : Rs.11 000/
Total : Rs.1 24 609/
Thus the OP is liable to refund Rs.66 180 ÷ 2 = Rs.33090/ to the Complainant towards tuition fee.
Accordingly we direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs.33 090/ towards 50% of the tuition fee paid by the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the institution of the complaint till its realization and Rs.15 000/ towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
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. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.33 090/ 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.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 02.07.16.
