Date of Filing: 06-12-2017
Date of Order: 16-9-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 16th day of September, 2019
C.C.No.517 /2017
Between
Purab Surana, S/o.Manoj Kumar Surana,
Aged 16 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.H.No.4-1-11/D/4, Tilak Road,
Ramkote, Hyderabad – 500 001
Represented by his father and
Natural guardian Sri Manoj Kumar Surana
S/o.Late Uttam Raj Surana,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.No.4-1-11/D/4, Tilak Road,
Ramkote, Hyderabad – 500 001 ……Complainant
And
- FIITJEE LIMITED
Saifabad Branch, Khairthabad H.O.,
Hyderabad – 500 004
Rep. by its Administrative officer
- IITJEE LIMITED
Fiitjee House, 29-A,
Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Nagar,
New Delhi- 110 016 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri A. Vijay Kumar
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Sri Rupendra Mahendra
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that non refunding of the fee paid amounts to deficiency of service hence a direction to opposite party to refund the entire fee amount paid and to award a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss sustained to the complainant for not refunding the amount by the opposite party.
- Complaint averments in brief are that the complainant was got admitted into the opposite party No.1 institution for two years Integrated programme for IIT- JEE and paid a total sum of Rs.1,73,591/- by NEFT and also by way of a cheque. Classes were commenced from 2-6-2017 and complainant attended the classes just for ten (10) days and during that period he could not cope up with the hectic schedule starting from 7.00am to the completion till 6.00pm and he could not understand the concept of studies and was got psychological effect and went into depression. As the complainant was in depression he was taken to a medical officer on 10-6-2017 and after careful examination medical officer prescribed some medicines and advised for complete rest and avoid stressful works and studies. The medical officer also advised the complainant’s father to change the college of the complainant immediately by admitting in a different college. Hence the complainant’s father submitted a letter on 13-6-2017 to the opposite party No.1 and sent a mail to opposite party No.2 informing that the complainant was unable to cope up with the schedule of studies and was not understanding concept of the studies and sought for refund of the amount paid. To the letter of the complainant’s father the management of the opposite parties issued a reply on 22-6-2017stating that fees once paid cannot be refunded and gave commitment to help the student in the possible manner.
The complainant’s father also took the complainant to Mahavir hospital and Research centre and after due consultation and taking into consideration of the advice given by the doctors got admitted the complainant in another college where there is less stress Curriculum. The complainant’s father is a petty business man borrowed money from his friends and well wishers for payment of the fee to the opposite parties for the admission of the complainant. On account of admitting the complainant in different college the complainant’s father was constrained to secure additional loans. The opposite parties are fully aware of the health condition of the complainant but refused to refund the fee collected on the issue of self made rules which are against principles of natural justice.
Hence the present complaint for the above said reliefs.
- Opposite parties filed a detailed written version admitting about the admission given to the complainant for the two years integrated course but denied the rest of the complainant’s version .
The stand of the opposite party in the written version is that the selection of the students seeking admission to in its institution is based on marks secured in the admission test conducted by it. Only a few students will qualify in the admission test. Each student who intend to appear admission test is required to fill registration form and at the time of filling the said form the staff of the opposite party explains to students about the details of the programme in a clear manner. To ensure the quality of the studies the opposite party takes the students who qualify in the admission test. Similarly the faculty members in the institution are recruited through most strict selection process and only those who qualify all the tests are recruited. After selection of the faculty, members has to undergo compulsory training irrespective of their teaching experience to maintain uniform teaching.
The complainant joined two years integrated programme Pinnacle for the years 2017-2019. After the test he was enrolled in the institution on 8-3-2017 but discontinued the course in the middle of the academic year hence he is not entitled for the refund of the fee paid. Because the complainant is not in a position to cope up with the hectic schedule of the studies and unable to understand the concept of the studies the same cannot be a reason to refund the fee paid as the student had voluntarily failed to attend the classes and failed to utilize the services provided in the institution, as such institution is not liable to refund the amount paid towards admission fee.
Opposite party institution is a self financed and self managed institution and runs on the fees collected from the students. Most of the expenditure is incurred in advance and also is of fixed nature. Institution has to bear expenditure like rent of the premises, salary of the faculty members and non faculty staff, electricity and other allied expenditures, preparation and printing of study materials etc irrespective of number of students and batches. That apart total fee collected includes taxes as applicable and cost of study materials supplied to the students. The complainant and his father have read and understood the contents of terms and conditions contained in the enrollment form a declaration form and signed the same. They have accorded their unconditional and free consent for the terms and conditions which says that admission fee once paid cannot be refunded.
The seat which was filled up with the complainant is left open in view of withdrawal of the complainant in the middle of the academic year and same could not be filled up with any other student. As such the same is left vacant causing loss to the institution. The complainant failed to show non-performance of any of the terms and conditions of the contract on the part of the opposite party. The institution is running the course successfully and no student left the course on the ground of deficiency of service. Since there is no deficiency of service and complainant himself withdrew voluntarily from the course he opted to pursue he cannot seek refund of the amount paid as the same is non-refundable as per the terms and conditions of the enrollment form signed by the complainant’s father as natural guardian.
The complainant has agreed and accepted Arbitration clause forming part of Declaration attached to the enrollment form. In view of the Arbitration clause the complainant cannot maintain the present complaint before this Forum. The present complaint is nothing but the total misuse of process of law and complainant is not a consumer and as per the Apex Court in the matter of admission fee etc there cannot be any deficiency of service and such matter cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the C.P.Act 1986. Hence the complaint is deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
In the enquiry the evidence affidavit of complainant’s father is got filed and four (4) documents are exhibited in support of the evidence affidavit contents . Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of its General Manager at opposite party No.1 institution is got filed and through him four (4) documents are exhibited. Both sides have filed written arguments and supplemented the same with oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could make out a case that he is a consumer and the opposite party caused deficiency of service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the admission fee paid and also for the compensation claimed ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: None of the averments of the complaint discloses that the opposite party offered any service by way of any contract and by not performing the terms of contract caused deficiency of service. Even if the total contents of the complaint are taken as true it does not discloses that opposite party failed to fulfill either obligation or undertakings given to the complainant and other students at the time of admission during the academic period. The only reason assigned in the complaint as well as evidence affidavit of complainant’s father is the complainant could not cope with the hectic schedule of studies commencing from 7.00 am to closing hours of 6.00pm every day and he is unable to understand the concept of the studies offered in the institution. Failure to understand the concept of courses and unable to cope up with the time schedule of the studies is not the fault of opposite party institution. There is no denial of signing of enrollment form and explaining of the terms and conditions incorporated in the enrollment form as well as declaration signed by both complainant and his father. A cursory look of the Ex.B3 enrollment form shows if any student leave the opposite party institution without completing the full course for any reason of whatsoever including transfer of parent or guardian or ill health either to the student or to his any of the family members the institution is not liable to refund the fee collected at the time of admission. An attempt is made in the complaint by saying that the terms and conditions incorporated in the enrollment form are self made for the institution and they are against the principles of natural justice. But in support of it no authority or citation is shown by the learned counsel of the complainant. So it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to the complainant so as to say that fee paid at the of admission into the institution is liable to be refunded.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties in support of his arguments that in the matter of admission fee etc a consumer complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum placed reliance in the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also National Commission.
The Apex Court in the case of P.T.vc Koshy & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors in SLP No.22532/2012 held as under:
In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fee for the entire course i.,e for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution teels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fee must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall duo. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.
The Hon’ble National Commission also in catena of decisions held that in the matter of Educational Institutions and admission fee a consumer complaint is not maintainable. In the light of the law laid by the Apex Court in the above said authority it is crystal clear that the complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and in turn seek refund of the amount paid as admission fee while enrolling himself as a student. Hence the point is answered infavour of the opposite parties.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for refund of the admission fee paid and also compensation.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 16th day of September , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy of letter dt.13th June 2017
Ex.A2-Reply letter dt.22-06-2017
Ex.A3- doctor’s prescription dt.10-6-2017, 18-08-2017 & 20-10-2017
Ex.A4- newspaper
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1- letter dt.22-6-2017 addressed to the opposite parties requesting for refund of the fees
Ex.B2- letter dt.13-6-2017 addressed to the opposite parties
Ex.B3- enrolment form of the complainant
Ex.B4- letter dt.08-3-2017 addressed to the opposite parties
MEMBER PRESIDENT
