Delhi

East Delhi

CC/45/2017

SUDARSANAM PILLAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEE - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2020

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.-  45/2017

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              01/02/2017

                                                                                                   Order reserved on              14/02/2020

                                                                                                   Date of Order                      17/02/2020

 

In matter of

Mr. M. SudarasananPillai

R/o- A-17, Police Quarters

VivekVihar, Delhi 110095…………………………...…………….Complainant

 

Vs

FIIT JEE Ltd.

5^th Floor, Roots Tower,

Nr NirwanVihar Metro Station

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

 

Complainant’s Advocate            MrParween Malik &Asso.

Opponent’s Advocate                 Mr. Dilip Kumar &Asso.

 

Quorum   ShSukhdev  SinghPresident

Dr P N Tiwari                Member

MrsHarpreetKaur      Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member

 

Brief Facts of the case

 

The complainant’s daughter got admitted in OP center for two years class room program vide enrollment no. 1151131680069 and started attending classes from April 2016 after depositing course fee Rs 2,39,528/- through PDC and DD (ExCW1/C2). She attended classes upto Oct. 2016 and thereafter left attending classes of her own due to no satisfaction in study pattern. It had been stated that request application was sent for refund of course fee (Ex CW1/3), but no response was given by OP. Seeing incorporating attitude, filed this complaint and claimed Rs 5 lakhs with 18% per annum including course fee and compensation for mental harassment.

 

OP in their written statement through their AR, MrMridulPathakauthorized under resolution of OP as marked Annexure OP/1, denied all allegations of deficiency in OP’s work, services and no unfair trade practice was adopted. It was admitted that complainant’s daughter took admission in said course as per enrollment form terms and deposited course fee as per detailsin Enrollment form containing declaration/undertaking accepting plan II for depositing entire fee at one time duly signed by complainant and his daughter (Ex OPW1/2). OP also submitted Enrolment Report (Ex OPW1/3) showing fee details.

 

It was also submitted that admission to their institution was done only on the basis of marks obtained in the admission test conducted by OP or on the basis of NTSE conducted by NCERT, JSTSE (Delhi). It was also stated that complainant withdrew of herself as voluntarily from the course and demanding refund of her fee which was denied as per terms and condition of enrolment Form. Keeping interest of student, vacancy of seat created by student never filled by OP who leaves course midway. All detail terms and conditions pertaining to enrollment form were explained. It was stated that complainant opted classroom program for JEE advanced as weekend contact classes and all the conditions were well read over by them and had signed too making a privity of contract with OP. OP referred citation of MrMayankTiwarivs FIITJEE RP 4335/2014 and PT Koshyvs Ellen Charitable where it was held that Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, so no question of deficiency in services could be held.

 

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 to Govt. besides supplying the study material. OP submitted annexures as OPW1/2 as Enrolment form, OPW1/3 as Enrolment report cum acknowledgement and contract, Information details with Parent Data Sheet (confidential) as OPW1/4. So, there was no deficiency in their services or unfair trade practice was adopted and prayed to dismiss this misconceived complaint.

Complainant submitted rejoinder to written statement and denied facts stated by OP and stated that their all facts and evidences were correct and on record. She also submitted her evidences on affidavit and re- affirmed on oath that complainant relied on all evidences on record and were true.

OP submitted evidences on affidavit through MrMridulPathak, AR with OP and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences submitted as evidences were true and as per terms and condition of the admission rules (Ex OPW1/Ann.1). OP relied on all admission requirements’ (Ex OPW1/Ann.2). Being self-financed and self-managed education institution. It was reaffirmed that complainant’s daughter was admitted for two year’s CRP IIT-JEE advanced Regular Week Contact classroom program for JEE (advanced) as weekend classes, but institution was left of her own wish in midway and seat remained vacant. Refund of course fee was contrary to institution’s terms and conditions of Enrollment Form. It was also stated that after attending weekend classes from April 2016 to Oct 2016 and thereafter she withdrew herself and asked for refund of fee entire course fee which was not possible as batch had run successfully.

 

Complainant submitted written arguments and reiterated that she paid total fee amounts Rs 2,39,528/-which was accepted by OP. Complainant also submitted few more citations where refund of fee was allowed. The citations were as under-

 

1-FIITJEE Ltd. VsDr(Mrs) MinathiRath& others, RP 3365/2006 NC where it was laid down that complainant/respondent paid fee for full tenure and left course midway due to strenuous to pursue the course. In reference to Hon. Supreme Court judgment in Islamic Academy of Education vs St. of Larnatka (2003) 6 SCC 696 where it was stated that if a student had given bank guarantee as PDC for entire course fee and appellant/OP had collected the same and given admission, should had not collected entire fee in advance, but for the session/year wise and Institution to utilize the balance fee for remaining sessions. As respondent had left the course in midway whatsoever reason, Appellant/OP was entitled to refund balance fee for the period which was not utilized by respondent/OPafter deducting taxes and administrative expenses. 

Same view was adopted in another orders of State Commission of Chandigarh in -

MrsShinjiniTiwari w/o Mr Rahul Tiwari, Appeal no. 109/2019, and also in FIIT JEE Ltd. VsLalitGarg& others, Appeal no. 59/2019, Chd., andFIIT JEE Ltd. Vikram Seth(minor),Appeal 223/2018. In above orders, reference of FIIT JEE Ltd vs Harish Soni RP 2054/2013, NC, was taken where it was decided that student if pay full fee in advance and leaves course in midway and seat remains vacant and could not be filled, so complainant was not entitled for any refund. But complainant/appellant further contented on Brilliant Tutorials Pvt Ltd. VsAshwaniVerma, 2010(4)CPJ,396 where reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgment in Islamic Academy of Education and others vs St. of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 696, it was held that charging fee in advance beyond the current semester/year would certainly amount to unfair trade practice and same cannot be countenanced. So OP was directed to refund the balance fee to the appellant/complainant which was taken in advance.

OP also submitted written synopsis and through certain citations, justified their stand for not refunding course fee. These were as under-

1. FIIT JEE Ltd. & others vs Ram P Sambhagi, RP 1301/2016 NC, decided on 04/02/2019, where it was laid down that OP agreed to pay lump sum payment of Rs one lakh to each student, but in present case, the contents being different and OP did not offer any lumpsum payment to complainant. So no reliance could be placed on this order.
2. FIIT JEE ltd. Vs Harish Soni, RP 2054/2013, NC decided on 17/07 2015. Though this is a dissenting order where Presiding Member’s order was upheld due to difference of opinion among the Hon. Members at NC. In this case, complainant/respondent had deposited entire course fee under integrated program of two years and left the course midway as she was not satisfied by the way of teaching. No refund was given by appellant/company, so Ld. Forum allowed complaint and ordered OP for 50% fee to be refunded, but State Commission by way of appeal directed OP company to refund entire fee after deducting service tax for unutilized period with 7.5% per annum and litigation charges. Before National Commission in Revision Petition,it was decided that complainant/respondent was not entitled for refund of balance fee for un-utilized period. 

It was also considered that-

1-Whether complainant/respondent could go beyond the declaration signed by student and guardian?

Under PTKoshy& others vs Ellen Charitable Trust & others, SLP Civil 22532/2012 SC, held that Education Institutions are not providing any kind of services, so Fora cannot entertain such complaints under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Similar view was taken in AnuparnaCollege of Engineering vsGulshan Kumar, FA 360/2013, State Commission, Panchkula, Haryana where it was held that complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ and OP cannot be treated as service provider.

Bharthi Knitting Co. vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Div. of AirfrightLtd, AIR 1996 SC 2508 held that Forum cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the contract. So parties are bound by the contract.

2-Whether Forum could strike down the terms and conditions of a contract duly executed between the parties?

Citations submitted by OP were-

• TV SundaramIyengar& others vsDrMuthuswamy& others, 2003 (2) CPJ NC 176,
• BaiHira Devi & others vs Official Assignee of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 448,
• Bhandari Construction Co. vs Narayan GopalUpadhye&ohters, 2007 SC 1441,
• Ramdeo Baba Engineering College vsSushantYuvraj Rode & others III (1994) CPJ 160 NC.
• Harish Sonivs FIITJEE,
• Bhojla Dental College & Hospital & others vsAmandeep Singh II (2009) CPJ 336.

In all above citations, it was held that respondent / company was justified not refunding fee.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels in detail and after perusing materials on record, order were reserved.

We have gone through the facts, evidence on affidavit and factors decided in above citations, it was clear that complainant had taken admission at OP institute and had paid entire course fee at one time, but OP being a company registered under the Indian Company Act, was providing weekend course for various higher studies and here complainant took admission for pursuing admission in IIT, but left course attending merely for six months on the ground as education was not appropriate and stated the reason of ill health. Though no documents were on record pertaining to ill health, so this submission cannot sustain. As far as deposition of entire fee for two years at one time is concerned and in absence of OP’s version (on affidavit) that seat remained vacant whole year, presumed to be an unfair trade practice for not refunding balanced payment to complainant.

 

So, we direct OP to refund the next session’s fee which was un-utilized after deducting taxes paid and other administrative charges. The left out amount be refunded within 30 days to the complainant with 7% per annum from the date of next session to start and Rs 5000/-as compensation including litigation charges. If awarded amount is not paid within the stipulated time, entire awarded amount shall carry same interest till realization.

 

The order copy be sent to the parties as per the Section 18(6) Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the record room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                MrsHarpreetKaur- Member

 

Sukhdev Singh - President