Delhi

East Delhi

CC/873/2012

DAYA RAM HALDWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEE - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

             CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.-     873/2012

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              09/11/2012

                                                                                                   Order reserved on              22/08/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       23/08/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr. Daya Ram Haldwani, adult 

R/o- 180-B, Pocket J&K,

Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095……………….……………...…………….Complainant

                                                     

                                                                     Vs

FIIT JEE Ltd.

5^th Floor, Roots Tower

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…………………..………………………………Opponent

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh      President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                Member                   

                     

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case      

                                                                                         

The complainant after seeing an advertisement of highest success rate in engineering carrier got admitted his minor son (Shubham) with OP and deposited required fee for course. He paid fee through post dated cheques vide no. 4484, 128652 and 4494 and deposited DD of a sum of  Rs 11000/ and 50562/-. After the classes started, it was noticed that the teaching schedule was not as CBSE and also time allotted was not suitable to his son, so he contacted OP for change of time schedule which was denied. Complainant tried his level best to get his son accommodated in his studies, but OP neither adjusted time slot nor teaching schedule as per CBSE pattern, so he applied for refund of entire fee as per annexure IV. It was also stated that OP had also threatened complainant so he requested bank to stop payment of three PDC given.  

Seeing the rude attitude of OP, he filed this complaint for refund of entire amount paid through DD a sum of Rs 61,562/-with 12% interest and compensation Rs 15,000/-for harassment with litigation charges Rs 5000/.

OP submitted their written statement through their AR, Mr Ashish Kumar Agarwal who was authorized under resolution of OP as marked Annexure OP/1 and denied all allegations as incorrect and wrongly alleged as there was neither any deficiency in their services nor any unfair trade practice was done for complainant. It was admitted that complainant son was admitted in the said course as marked his enrolment form zerox as marked Ex. OPII. It was stated that complainant withdrew his son voluntarily from the course and was demanding refund of his fee which was denied as per terms and condition of enrolment Form.  

 

It was stated that complainant opted weekend classes for his son for two years course tenure and all the conditions were well read over by them and had signed too making a privity of contract with OP. It was admitted that complainant’s son was admitted after he qualified their written test, group discussion, model lecture and personal interview so that every student must maintain standard of training. It was submitted that OP were self financed and self managed institute which runs on fee collected from students and had to bear all the expenses of institute like lease rent, salary of faculty and staff, electricity etc. and various other future expenditures. The fee collected from successful candidates includes taxes applicable also besides supplying  the study material. OP submitted annexures as OPW1/2 as Enrolment form, OPW1/4 as Enrolment report cum acknowledgement, OPW1/5 as Enrolment Contract, Information details for students and parents as OPW1/6, Parent Data Sheet (confidential) as OPW1/7, Hall Ticket as OPW1/8, CBSE Exam result of Shubham as OPW1/9 and Consequences details pertaining to dishonor of cheques as OPW1/10. So, there was no deficiency in their services or unfair trade practice was adopted and prayed to dismiss this misconceived complaint.

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to written statement and denied facts stated by OP and stated that their all contents were correct. He also submitted his evidence on affidavit and re- affirmed on oath that all facts and evidence were correct.

OP had also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Ashish Kumar Agrawal, AR to OP and affirmed on oath that all the acts and evidences submitted as evidences were true and as per terms and condition of the admission rules.  It was stated that their enrolment form contains all information in detail and only after acceptance of all conditions, admission was given to the successful candidates. In this case also, Mst. Shubham was a successful candidate and admission was taken. After attending weekend classes, he withdrew himself and asked for refund of fee which was not possible for refund as batch was also full and course was continued. Complainant submitted written arguments and OP also submitted their arguments with higher courts citations applicable to them and taken on record.  

 

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels, file perused and order was reserved.

We have gone through the facts and evidence on affidavit, it was clear that complainant had taken admission at OP institute and had paid part of fee through DD to OP and three cheques issued as PDC were also made stop payment by the complainant.

We have seen the citations submitted by Op as –

• FIIT JEE vs Harish Soni-RP 2054/2013NC decided on 08/10/2015- it was held that “As regards the terms stipulating that the student withdrawing from the coaching class midway will not be entitled to seek any refund of the fee deposited by him being on unfair trade practice, we are of the view that in a case where the seat vacated on account of withdrawal by a student during the currency of the course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against the vacant seat, refusal of the coaching centre/institute of refund of the fee cannot be said to be an unfair trade practice”. 
• FIIT JEE Ltd vs Nitish Aggarwal- RP 3673/2013 NC, decided on 07/04/2016- the same view of supra was taken.  
• FIIT JEE Ltd. vs Balavignesh – RP 2684/2014,
• FIIT JEE Ltd vs Sajjan Kumar Gupta RP 4476/2013,
• Mayank Tiwari vs FIIT JEE Ltd. RP 4335/2014 and
• FIIT JEE Ltd. vs Varjeet Walia RP 1375/2014

In all above citations, the same view was adopted that complainant was not a consumer and complaints were dismissed.     

We have also gone through in detail in reference to the above mentioned citations by OP as it was also stated that Education was not a service under Sec. 2(d) of the Act as held by Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs Rajappa & others (AIR 1978 SC 548) where it was held that-

‘‘though Educational Institutions carry out a number of activities for its administration including that of collecting fee for holding classes, conducting examinations, evaluation of marks and also declaration of results, all are components of concept of imparting education and in my view, they are not severable holding that while collection of fee for holding classes is a service rendered by the educational institutions for consideration, the rest are statutory functions not depending on contract or hiring of services of educational institutions.” 

 

Apex court also had similar view in Unnikrishanan vs State of AP (1993)1SCC645 and here it was said that -

“Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one opposed to the ethos and traditions and sensibilities of education has never been treated a trade or business in this country since time immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty”.

Similar view was taken by NCDRC in Registrar, University of Bombay vs Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (FA 284/1992) I (1994) CPJ 146(NC). Here also it stated that -

“Checking mark sheets or re evaluation answer books is not performing a ‘service’ which had been hired or availed of for consideration”

 

We have also seen citation - Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 1569 where Apex court placed reliance on Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 and said that -

“Education is not a commodity and that such matters cannot be entertained by the Forums under the Act. Education Institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service”.

 

So taking references of above citations where a law has been laid down that whoso ever take admission in education institution and withdrew voluntarily and refusal to refund the fee decision by OP was correct as per the terms of enrolment form.    

Thus we have come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency of OP in refusal to refund the fee paid. Considering the terms of the enrolment form, complainant was not entitled for any refund. Hence this complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed without any order to cost.

The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                    Shri  Sukhdev Singh - President