CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 689/09
Shri Chander Parkash Sharma
Son of Late Shri Nand Kishore,
R/o A-774, Avantika,
Rohini, Sector II, Delhi. -Complainant
Vs
The Managing Director,
FIITJEE Ltd.,
ICES House, Kalu Sarai,
Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi – 110016. -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 23.09.2009 Date of Order: 01.09.2015
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that his son Anurag Sharma sought admission for the preparation of entrance examination under IITJEE in two years programme for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and he deposited the total amount of Rs. 80,813/- vide receipt No. SD06-07/0867 dated 1.5.2006 (Course fee Rs. 72,000/-, Service Tax Rs. 8640/- and Education Cess Rs. 173/-). Complainant’s son attended the classes for one year but he felt that since there was no proper guidance and study material being provided to him satisfactory and his career was being affected, he stopped his studies with the OP after one year under intimation to the OP. The complainant asked for the refund of the fee which was refused to be paid by the OP. Despite several letters and reminders and personal visits, the OP did not refund the fee on the ground that once the fee is paid it is not refundable for any reason. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to refund Rs. 80,813/- towards refund of the fee amount along with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and harassment and cost of litigation.
In the reply, the OP has inter-alia stated that the selection process of faculty members includes Written Test, Group discussion, Model lecture and Personal Interview. Only those who qualify all the tests are recruited; that after recruitment, its faculty members have to undergo compulsory training irrespective of their teaching experience to maintain uniform teaching; that all the teachers who were teaching complainant’s son are well qualified. Reliance has been placed on Paras 5, 6, 10, 14 & 15 of the relevant declarations in the Enrolment Form, which read as under:
“Para 5: I understand 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 6: In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be.
Para 10: I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIITJEE declaration, in letter and spirit.
Para 14: 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 15: I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the FIITJEE 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 parent/guardian without any coercion from any side.”
It is stated that after perusing these declarations and the consent accorded thereto by the complainant and his son, it is crystal clear that the present complaint has been filed with utmost dishonest and malafide intentions. The other averments made in the complaint are denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder it is inter-alia denied that while seeking admission/registration with the OP for two years class programme, the son of the complainant and also the complainant himself had understood the Enrolment Form and declarations contained therein and thereafter they filled in and consented to the same.
Complainant has filed his 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 counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
Nowhere in the reply the OP has stated that it is not an educational institution nor has this fact been stated in the affidavit of the OP’s witness.
The copy of the Enrolment Form of the complainant is Ex. OPW-II. It contains the important information for the students/Parents/Local Guardians. It also contains the above reproduced Paras 5, 6, 10, 14 & 15. The Enrolment Form has been signed by the complainant and his father. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Enrolment Form. If it is so, the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount of fee.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own 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.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 01.09.15.
