Delhi

East Delhi

CC/901/2014

VIPIN JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEE - Opp.Party(s)

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 901/14

 

Shri Vipin Jain

R/o C-194, G.F.

Surya Nagar

Ghaziabad, UP – 201 001                                   ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. FIITJEE Ltd.

5^th Floor, Roots Tower

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. FIITJEE House

29-A, Kalu sarai

Sarvapriya Vihar

New Delhi – 110 016                                                       …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 24.09.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 11.04.2018

Judgement Passed on: 12.04.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Vipin Jain against FIITJEE Ltd. (OP-1) and FITTJEE House (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that complainant Vipin Jain admitted his son, Master Akshat Jain (En. No. 1152131460098) under “Pinnacle”  2 years Classroom Program for JEE (Advanced) – Weekend Contract Classes, 5^th Floor, Roots Tower, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.  On 30.04.2014 after making payment of Rs. 2,21,051/- vide Canara Bank Demand Draft number 623026 and 623027 dated 29.04.2014, they organized  weekend classes, but took no steps to ensure that the faculty conducts the classes in a methodical manner so as to help the son of the complainant could follow the tutorials rather the classes were conducted in a haphazard manner which were not helping the purpose of joining the coaching classes.  They did not have any process of seeking feed backs of students or their parents. 

          Having no way to ventilate the queries, the son of the complainant told him about the haphazard coaching under extremely depressed condition.  The complainant spoke to FIITJEE Limited who directed Shri Abhisekh Mishra to conduct a counseling session and the same was conducted. 

          Since the confidence of the son of the complainant was not recovered, the complainant had no option, but requested the OPs to allow his son to leave the FIITJEE classes on 06.06.2014.  This request was made through a letter of dated 06.06.2014.  After this, the OPs tried to help his son regain his self confidence and overcome the setback at the FIITJEE faculties’ campus due to being subjected to continuous do it or leave it attitude of FIITJEE faculties.  However, son of the complainant could not regain his confidence and he withdrew from science after obtaining high percentage of marks in science subjects in his last exams.

          The complainant gave a legal notice of dated 19.08.2014 which was not replied.  It has further been stated that the treatment meted out to the complainant’s son forced him to change his stream to commerce as he was under fear to lose an academic year.  The complainant sent an email on 13.07.2014 requesting FIITJEE to refund the fee alongwith all details of his son.  This request was rejected by OP through their mail of dated 18.07.2014.  Thus, the complainant have stated that OPs were deficient in providing the services as well as indulging in unfair trade practice. Hence, he has prayed for refund of Rs. 2,21,051/- alongwith 18% interest;             Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony, physical pain and harassment and cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply filed by FIITJEE Ltd., they have stated that complaint was not maintainable as the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in providing services by OPs.  They have stated that no student has left the course in midway except son of the complainant.  They were bound by the terms of agreement.  They have denied that no step was taken to ensure that the faculties conduct classes in a methodical manner or classes were conducted in a haphazard manner.  They have denied having received any email.  They have further denied that there was setback low confidence to the son of the complainant.  They have denied other facts also.         

4.       Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint.

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have not filed separate evidence, but have treated his rejoinder as evidence also.

          In defence, FIITJEE Ltd. examined Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, Authorized Representative of OP, who have deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the contents of the reply.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of Incorporation certificate and Board resolution dated 21.09.2013 (Ex.-I), copy of enrolment form (Ex.-II) and copy of fee receipt (Ex.-III).  

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that complainant have failed to show any deficiency on their part.  He has further argued that son of the complainant have himself withdrew from the coaching classes and he was bound by the terms and conditions of agreement.

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that since the faculty of the FIITJEE was not competent to impart coaching, it amounts to deficiency on their part. 

          If a look is made to the testimony of the complainant as well as testimony of Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal who has deposed on behalf of OP, it is noticed that complainant himself withdrew from the classes.  Not only that, there is nothing on record to show that faculty of FIITJEE was incompetent to provide coaching to the students. 

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy vs. Ellen Charitable Trust, has laid down that education is not a commodity.  Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

           In view of the law, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question of any deficiency in service on the part of FIITJEE does not arise.  Even otherwise also, the complainant have failed to show any deficiency on their part, therefore, no case of the complainant for deficiency in service was made out.  Hence, the case of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member   

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President