DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No: 776 of 2010]

                                                           Date of Institution : 03.12.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 04.04.2011

Sh. Sunny Sharma, Father of Sh. Vipin Mohan Sharma resident of House No.1040, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh – 160009.

                                                …….Complainant.

V E R S U S

FIIT JEE Limited, SCO No.321-322, First and Second Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160022 through its Director.

…..Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued by:Sh. Sunny Sharma, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Roopesh Kanwar, advocate for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Vipin Mohan Sharma through his father Sh. Sunny Sharma has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to :-

i)                   Refund Rs.46,319/-  received by OPs under various heads.

ii)                 Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental disturbance suffered by him for the last four months.

2.                Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that his son Sh. Vipin Mohan Sharma approached the OP and took admission in 2 Year Classroom Programme [2010-2012] after getting himself registered with the OP vide Regd. No.1101041612712090134 and Enrollment No.1151161020007. It is alleged that after attaining good rank in FIITJEE Talent Reward Examination, he was offered admission in the said course and was asked to deposit the total fee for two years in advance by 25.2.2010. It is averred that a total sum of Rs.46,319/- was deposited by way of demand drafts towards admission fee, Infrastructure Cost Fee, Tuition Fee and Books & Study Material for two years coaching in advance. The breakup of the aforesaid amount of Rs.46,319/-, after deducting Scholarship FTRE granted to the complainant, under the Fee Plan-III, is as under:

It is further averred in the complaint that the coaching classes started from 20.4.2010 and in the meantime, the son of the complainant was selected in Mohindra United World College, Pune (Maharashtra), who offered him full scholarship for full course including boarding and lodging expenses. The complainant’s son took admission in the said college at Pune and requested the OP vide his letter dated 4.8.2010 for the refund of the balance fee paid by him proportionately. Thereafter, the complainants also wrote letters/reminders dated 26.8.2010, 4.10.2010, 27.10.2010, 27.11.2010 and 9.4.2010 seeking refund of the fee but to no avail.

                   According to the complainant, non-refund of the amount mentioned above amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the reply filed by OP, the facts with regard to admission of the complainant in “Two Year Classroom Program” course has been admitted.  It has been pleaded that the complainant deposited the fee of Rs.43,569/- after availing 75% scholarship, which included Rs.10,000/- as admission fee, Rs.4,069/- as Service Tax and Rs.2,750/- for study material. It has been asserted that it was known to the complainant that the fee deposited was non refundable and the terms and conditions were duly signed by the complainant and his son after going through the same at the time of taking admission. According to the OP, neither the complainant nor his son ever complained of anything. As per the OP, after three months of study, the complainant himself voluntarily withdrew midway of the course and the seat so vacated by him remained vacant and never filledup. It has been specifically pleaded that to ensure quality education, uniform teaching standard and keeping in mind the interests of the students, OPs  do not fill the vacant seat against any student who leave the course midway. It has further been pleaded that no student had been inducted in the batch in place of the complainant   who left the course midway. According to OP, as per clause 6 and 7 of the declaration signed by the complainant, fee once paid is non-refundable. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.                It was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the OP that at the time of taking admission, the complainant and his father had signed declaration, the relevant portion of the said declaration, reads as under: -

“Para 6:      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 7:       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 12:     I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIIT JEE declaration, in letter and spirit.

Para 17:     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 or Enrolment Form and agree to abide by them without any reservation or ambiguity.

Para 18:     I/We further declare that the above named student is taking admission in the FIIT JEE 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.”

6.                Thus, according to the learned counsel, in view of the undertaking given above, the complainant or his father cannot claim refund of the fees deposited by them. Therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited the case of APEEJAY Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok, I (2009) CPJ 10 (NC).

7.                On the other hand, it was argued by the complainant that the declarations, mentioned above, have been obtained by the OP in the circumstances, where the complainant or his father had no option but to sign the same. The complainant or his father had no means or authority to get the said conditions changed. Otherwise also, according to the learned counsel, the undertaking mentioned above is one sided and cannot be looked into or relied upon for the decision of this case. His contention finds support from the ratio of the case titled Principal, S.D. College Vs. Reetika Manhas & Anr., IV (2008) CPJ 502, wherein the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission has held in Para 11 as under:-

“11.   Counsel for appellant contended that it is mentioned in the prospectus that the fee once deposited would not be refunded in case. Certainly rule of the prospectus is based on unfair trade practice. It is against equity. The college cannot be allowed to get benefit at the cost of student i.e. to charge fee twice for the same seat. Equity demands that the college should refund fee paid by respondent No.1 except of retaining fee for one month when she had taken admission. Certainly the condition as contained in the prospectus is repugnant to the provisions contained in the university calendar and against justice and equity and cannot be accepted.”

8.                Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case GGS College of Modern Technology Vs. Mrs. Kusum Arora, 2011 CTJ 346 (CP) (SCDRC). So to our mind, the declaration given by the complainant and his father is of no consequence.

9.                It was further argued by the learned counsel for the OP that as the complainant left the course at his own sweet will, so, he is not entitled to the refund of the fees. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited the case titled APEEJAY Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok (supra). However, in another case titled FIIT JEE (Hyderabad Classes) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Binjrajka, II (2010) CPJ 45, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has taken a different view and has held in Para 8 as under:-

“8.     In the earlier decisions, it was held that the institute need not refund the amount paid towards course fee in case the student withdraws from the institution or discontinue in the middle of the course. But, in the recent decision of the National Commission on the basis of the UGC guidelines it was held that the Ministry of Human Resources Development and UGC have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities in the public interest shall maintain the waiting list of students/candidates and in the event of any student admitted withdraws before the starting of the course the waited listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student or candidate who had withdrawn from the course. In view of the guidelines, it was held that the institution/University is bound to refund the fee that was paid for the entire course. The said guidelines also applied to the OP’s institution.”

10.              Similar view has been taken in the case titled Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2009 (3) CPC 187, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the conditions of such nature are one sided and biased totally in favour of the management and are against the principles of equity and natural justice. So, obtaining signatures on such conditions or declarations amounts to unfair trade practice.

11.              In the present case also, the OP has mentioned in Para No.5 of its reply that the seat vacated by the complainant remained unfilled. Neither the OP has stated in the reply nor there anything on record to prove that any waiting list was prepared and notified. There is also nothing on record to prove that the seat so vacated by the complainant was never filled by the OP.

12.              Furthermore, in case titled Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma, 2011 CTJ 288 (CP) (NCDRC), it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that like an educational institution, a training institute too cannot charge fees in advance beyond the current semester/year and charging of fees for more than one year amounts to unfair trade practice.

13.              In the present case, the OP had charged composite fees for the period of two years i.e. Rs.46,319/-. The course started on 20.4.2010 and the complainant moved an application for refund of the balance fee on 4.8.2010. So, admittedly, the complainant had studied for four months in the OP Institute. As the complainant had already been given 75% Scholarship-FTRE in the tuition fee, so he had to pay only Rs.14,500/- towards the tuition fee for two whole years. Thus, in view of the ratio of the cases FIIT JEE (Hyderabad Classes) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Binjrajka (supra) and Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh (supra), the complainant is entitled to the refund of the entire fee after deduction of proportionate fee for the period of four months from Admission Fee, Infrastructure Cost Fee, Tuition Fee and Books & Study Material Price plus Service Tax of Rs.4,069/-, which comes to Rs.11,105/-. OP Institute is also entitled to deduct Rs.1,000/- as administration charges as per UGS Guidelines. In addition to this, the complainant is entitled for compensation for physical harassment and agony, which he suffered at the hands of the OP Institute. Thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.34,214/- out of the total amount paid by him after deducting the aforementioned amounts.

14.              In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is allowed.  The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.34,214/- to the complainant. In addition to this, the Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and litigation charges amounting to Rs.7,000/-.

15.              The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of one month from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay the above said amount (excluding cost of litigation) along with interest @12% per annum from the date of complainant making application for refund i.e. 04.08.2010, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation mentioned above.

16.       Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

4^th April 2011.                                

                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

                                               PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

[Complaint Case No.776 of  2010]

ORDER

PRESENT: None.

                                                          ---

                   Arguments heard on 31.03.2011.  The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

04.04.2011                   Member          President        Member