Delhi

East Delhi

CC/696/2013

KRISHAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIIT ZEE - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.696/2013:

In the matter of:

Sh. Krishan Kumar Goyal

Goyal Motors, 288/1, Krishna Gali,

Chhota Bazaar, Kashmere Gate,

Delhi – 110 006

Complainant

 

Vs

1. M/s. FIIT JEE Ltd.

FIIT JEE Limited (Delhi East)

5^th Floor, Roots Tower,

District Centre Lakshmi Nagar,

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. FIIT JEE Ltd.

(Through its Managing Director)

FIIT JEE House, House No.29 – A,

Kalu Sarai, SarvapriyaVihar,

New Delhi – 110 016

Respondents

 

                                                                                    Date of Admission – 21/08/2013

                                                                           Date of Order           - 07/12/2015

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on 25/03/2012 the complainant got his son, Harsh Goyal who was studying in class 12^th, admitted into the Respondent Institute which is running coaching classes for the preparation of admission tests for various engineering institutes in itsTwo Year Classroom Program – Regular Week Contract Classes (hereinafter referred to as the Program) at the East Delhi Branch of the Respondent No.1 vide Enrolment No.1151131240059 and RegistrationNo.1101041372512110128.  The complainant gave the entire course fee of Rs.1,88,725/- in advance to the Respondent No.1 through post-dated cheques.  It is alleged that too much pressure affected his class 12^th studies miserably and he was forced to leave the FIIT JEE course on 14^th  November, 2012 i.e., about 7-8 months after admission.  The complainant alleges to have met the officers of Respondent No.1 with regard to the refund of the balance course fee for the remaining unutilized period and that hehad been assured by themabout the refund of the balance course fee.   As per the advice given by them he wrote a letter dated 08/12/2012 seeking the refund but he did not get any reply.  Ultimately when the refund was refused to him he served a legal notice dated 22/04/2013 upon the respondents but it was of no consequence.  It is in these circumstances that the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.1,47,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. till the amount is refunded to him.  The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.22,000/-.

In response to the notice issued to the respondents, written version filed wherein while admitting the fact of enrolment of the complainant to its Two Years Classroom Program for IIT – JEE Weekend Contact Classes vide Enrolment No.1151131240059 and the fact of receipt of the entire course fee of Rs.1,88,725/- for the two years out of which Rs.1,70,000/- is the entire course fee including the cost of books and Rs.18,725/- is the service tax thereon.  It is submitted by the respondent that it is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of imparting quality education to the students aspiring to get admission in various IITs of the country.  It is contended by the respondent that to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and keeping in view the interest of the students it does not fill the vacancy created by any student who leaves the course midway.  It has also raised the plea of Arbitration Clause in the contract executed between them.  It is contended that admission into the respondent institute is based on the performance of the students in the qualifying admission test conducted by it and it is at the time of the filling the Registration Form for appearance in the admission test that the student is provided the details of the program.  It is submitted that the complainant has admitted that his son left the course midway after attending the classes till 22/11/2012 as he could not cope with the pressure of studies.  It has denied that the complainant the receipt of legal notice dated 22/04/2013 by it.  Rest of the allegations have been denied.   

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the parties in support of their respective cases.

Heard the Arguments and perused the record. During the course of arguments the respondent has orally challenged the maintainability of the present complaint before the Consumer Forum in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 22532/2012 in the matter titled P .T. Koshy &Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors decided on 09/08/2012 on the ground that it being an educational institution is squarely covered by the said judgment and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Though this plea has not been taken up prior to the stage of oral arguments by the respondent in its pleadings, in the interest of justice and to decide the matter in a fair & judicious manner we will adjudicate upon the question prior to deciding this complaint on merits.  It is pertinent to mention here that in so far as the question raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of this complaint is concerned, suffice will be to say that the judgment of P .T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors (Supra) is only applicable to educational institutions that are regulated by statutory bodies like the All India Council of Technical Education(AICTE), Universities, Secondary School Board etc. and are related to delivery of education as a part of the curriculum that has been prescribed for obtaining a qualification prescribed by law.  The training and coaching institutes are service providers and are not educational institutions since they impart only training & coaching services which have been separately defined under Clauses (26) and (27) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as chargeable to Service Tax for the services rendered by them thereby clearly indicating that these institutes are not regular educational institutions and unlike educational institutions they are not regulated by statutes like the All India Council of Technical Education(AICTE), Secondary School Board etc. nor do these institutions issue certificate of proficiency/diploma etc. . As such the respondent is a Training & Coaching Institution and not an educational institution and is not entitled to immunity, as afforded by the P.T. Koshy Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court to Educational Institutions, from being tried under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the present complaint is maintainable before this Consumer Forum.

The respondent has also raised the issue of existence of arbitration clause in the Enrolment Contract which bars the jurisdiction of this Forum. We are not inclined to accept the contention in view of the the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs. &others, 2004 (1) CLT 456 wherein it has been held that the provisions of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the law in existence.

The issues which arise in this case for adjudication are that in view of the facts stated by the complainant in his complaint does he have any right to claim the fee deposited by him & whether refusal of the respondent to refund the fee when demanded by the complainant would amount to deficiency in service on its part so as to entitle the complainant for the relief claimed by him in his complaint.  It is stated in the pleadings of the complainant and argued by him that his son stopped going to the coaching institute as he was not able to cope with the pressure of studies both at the school and the coaching institute which had affected his class 12^th studies miserably.   In the present case, the son of the complainant had taken coaching classes for about 7-8 months before he quit from the institute. Neither it is the case of the complainant that the respondent was in any way deficient in providing services to the complainant viz. the classes conducted were below standard & not satisfactory, etc. nor it is alleged by the complainant that the conduct of the respondent was in any way contrary to law.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we arrive at an inference that the present complaint cannot be entertained by a Consumer Forum.  On the basis of the circumstances which the complainant has taken into account in his complaint, for the seeking the relief of refund of fee the complainant has to approach the court of competent jurisdiction as the relief sought by him cannot be awarded under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned supra, we find that there is no merit in this complaint and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the complainant to file the present complaint before the competent court, if so advised.  Complaint be returned to the complainant.  So far as Limitation is concerned the complainant may seek help from the authority reported in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.   

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules.

 

 (Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                       (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                                                                                President