Delhi

South Delhi

CC/934/2007

SATISH GOGIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT JEET LTE - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA

(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.

 

                                Case No. 934/07

 

Sh. Satish Gogia,

D-24, Green Park (Main),

New Delhi – 110084.                                       - Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/s FIIT JEE Ltd,

    Through its Director,

    29-A, Kula Sarai,

    ICES House, Sarvapriya Vihar,

    New Delhi – 110016.

2. Mr. Anup Gulati,

    Admission Coordinator,

    FIIT JEE Ltd.,

    29-A, Kula Sarai,

    ICES House, Sarvapriya Vihar,

    New Delhi – 110016.                                  - Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                                                                          Date of Institution: 24.08.2006

                                                  Date of decision: 26.03.2015

                                      O R D E R

 

         

    The complainant’s son sought admission in IIT regular course of batch SD TR 68A02 with OP-1, OP-2 being the admission coordinator of OP-1 Institute, and the complainant deposited the entire fee totaling to Rs. 1,33,566/- vide two receipts.  Complainant’s son joined the OP-1 institute and found that the teachers hired by the OP-1 institute were incompetent and not well  versed  with their subjects inasmuch as the chemistry teacher   was    extremely       incompetent        and        lacked

Case No. 934/07

knowledge of basic chemistry and also that contrary to as promised by the OPs the medium of instruction was not English as the teachers were unable to converse in that language.  Hence, according to the complainant, there was complete deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complainant and his son were completely betrayed and cheated .  After attending classes for 10 days, the complainant demanded the refund of the entire fee amount of Rs. 1,33,566/- vide various letters but to no response. Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the matter of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Minathi Rath (DR) and it is stated that the OPs were not justified in charging the fee for the whole duration of the course in advance by way of lump sum payment and the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence it is prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,33,566/- towards the advance fee along with 12% interest till realization of the amount, Rs. 3,50,000/- along with 12% interest by way of compensation for the stress and hardship to the complainant and his family and the cost of the complaint.

    In the reply, the OP has admitted the facts about the admission of son of the complainant and depositing of Rs. 1,33,566/- by him towards fees.  OP-1 claims itself to be pioneer

Case No. 934/07

in its field by adding its achievements.  However, the allegations made in the complaint have been denied.  In Preliminary Submissions Para No. 4 – it is inter-alia stated as under:

    “……..All the teachers who were teaching Complainant’s son are well qualified. Mr. Ashish Gupta who was teaching physics is M.Sc. (Physics) (Lucknow University).  Mr. Dinesh Dubey who was teaching Chemistry is B.Tech (Chemical) (HBTI, Kanpur) and Mr. Abishek Goel who was teaching Mathematics is B.E.(Elect.) (Rajasthan University).  Apart from this feedback of students was taken on regular intervals to ensure satisfaction of students.”

    The OP has placed reliance on Para 11 of the Declaration Form which was part of Enrollment Form and it is pleaded that  this complaint is barred by the Arbitration Agreement and the matter has to be  referred to the Sole Arbitrator.  It is stated that while  seeking admission/registration with the OP-1 for one year extended classroom programme, the complainant and also his son understood the Enrollment Form and Declarations contained therein and thereafter filled in  and  consented  to the same with regard to the terms and conditions as contained therein without any coercion or undue influence; that the said enrolment form  had been  countersigned by the complainant and his son along with various declarations.  Reliance has been placed on Para 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15 of the terms and conditions.  They are reproduced

Case No. 934/07

as under:

“Para5:  I understand that if I leave the institute before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including transfer of parents/guardians/illhealth of self or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/engineering college etc., or any 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 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 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

Case No. 934/07

permission of the parent/guardian without any coercion from day side….”

    It is stated that the OPs are not liable to refund the fee.  It is denied that retention of entire fee of full course was arbitrary, malafide, unilateral, against the prevailing laws and also the principles of natural justice.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

    In the rejoinder, Complainant has not given a reply to the preliminary submission No. 4 of the reply.  He has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

    Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal, AR of the OP-1 has been filed in evidence.

    Written arguments have been filed on behalf of OP but it appears that no written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.

    We have heard the counsel for OP.  However, none has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. We have also gone through the file very carefully.

    Reliance has been placed on behalf of the OP on a decision  rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No. 4335 of 2014 – Mayank Tiwari Vs FIIT JEE Ltd., decided on 08.12.14 and it is contended that in view of the

Case No. 934/07

said judgment, the complaint be dismissed.

    In the said case, the complainant had taken admission in the coaching course for IIT-JEE competitive examination run by the OP and  started attending coaching classes w.e.f. 18.4.2013 but he stopped attending the classes from 8.6.2013 because he did not find the teaching standard upto the mark. Accordingly, he claimed for refund of the fee.

    The complainant and his father had signed some declaration and undertaking, which contained similar declarations as contained in the present case and reproduced hereinabove. It was not the case of the complainant or his father that the said declaration and undertaking were not signed by them or the same were got signed from them by the OPs under duress and coercion etc.  Therefore, the Hon’ble National Commission observed  that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he (student) cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the refund of fee on the plea that the method of teaching was not upto the mark as assured by the OPs.  Rather, it was stated that it was his (student’s) responsibility to have ascertained the details with regard to the running of the course by the institute before depositing the course fee for being enrolled.  Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

    The present case also squarely is covered by the said judgment. Copy of Minathi Rath case or its citation has not been supplied to us.  However, the relevant Para reproduced in the complaint shows that it relates to a case of a course for more than one year while in the present case the complainant’s son had taken admission in one year course. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to refund of fee and the OP-1 is not guilty of deficiency in service.

    In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.  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.