Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/87/2020

Lavaya Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Ajay Pal Singh

06 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	87 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	03.02.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	06.09.2024

 

 

 

 

1.  Lavanya Goswami, 42, Type-3, PGIMER Campus, Chandigarh–160017 through her mother Dr.Basundhara.

2.  Dr.Basundhara, 42, Type-3, PGIMER Campus, Chandigarh-160017.

             … … … Complainants

 

Versus

FIITJEE Ltd. through its M.D., First & Second Floors, SCO 321-322, Himalya Marg, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160022.

   … … … Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.S.K.SARDANA,                MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by:    Sh.Ajay Pal Singh, Counsel for Complainants.

Sh.Vivek Lamba, Counsel for Opposite Party(OP).

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainants have filed the present complaint against the OP FIITJEE Ltd., which provides coaching facility for entrance to Engineering Colleges. It is submitted by complainants that it was assured to them by OP that their institute was ranked No.1 in India and complainant No.1 will get a very congenial atmosphere of excellent studies, go and clean campus and very well trained qualified teacher. Being allured by the OP, the complainant No.1 got admission in the institute being run by the OP in 3 Year Classroom Programme for IIT JEE/Weekend Contact Classes for the batch 2018 to 2021. The fee was to be paid by complainant No.2, who is mother of complainant No.1. It is submitted that although the gross fee for availing the classes was to be Rs.3,19,090/- for 3 years, since the complainant No.1 was an exceptional talent, she was given a scholarship waiver to the tune of Rs.1,46,822/-, therefore, the net fee payable came down to Rs.1,72,268/- plus GST. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.2499/- and Rs.28599/- were paid in the form of demand drafts on admission and subsequent payments were split into 8 unequal installments for which blank/post dated cheques were taken by the OP as remaining fee.

    It is submitted that complainant No.1 did not find the atmosphere and standard of studies as claimed by the OP. The complainant No.1, being not satisfied by the education provided by OP, decided to withdraw from the said institute of OP on 04.02.2019. E-mail (Ex.C-4) was sent by the complainant No.2 to the OP for the refund of the fee. On the refusal of the OP to refund the fee, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP with a prayer to direct the OP to pay the amount of Rs.1,66,842/- along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

 

2]       The complaint has been resisted by OP by filing a written version in which OP has stated that it was categorically and specifically made clear to the complainant and her parents that as per terms and conditions of the enrolment form, fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances. It is stated that complainant and her parents, after going through all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the enrolment form, had given their consent and signed the declaration/undertaking and submitted the OP for enrolment in Three Year Classroom Program for IIT JEE Weekend Contact Classes and accordingly complainant No.1 was enrolled in the said course. It is stated that fee for the said course program is Rs.1,54,847/- including GST of Rs.23,620/- and complainant had paid a sum of Rs.8900/- towards online test series and sum of Rs.33,500/- towards the books and study material. It is stated that complainant had only paid Rs.1,24,447/- to the OP after waiver of scholarship.

    It is further stated that OP-FIITJEE is renowned institute in providing preparation, coaching and guidance for Engineering Entrance Exams & IIT-JEE. It is stated that FIITJEE has been ranked as No.1 Coaching Institute for Engineering Entrance by an Independent Survey conducted by India Today.

    It is further stated that OP does not fill the vacancy created by the student who leave the course in between. It is stated that seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the course duration to maintain the quality and uniformity, therefore, the OP is entitled for the fee of the course program and the complainant is not entitled to refund any fee. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Complainants chose not to file replication.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       After meticulously going through the submissions and the record before us, we are of the opinion that non-refund of fee to the complainants, as requested on being not satisfied with their coaching, amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OP. There is no dispute that the complainant No.1 attended only few coaching/tuitions classes of the OP in the year 2018. Moreover, the OP also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging fee of three years coaching in advance from complainants by means of demand draft/post dated cheques, which is also illegal.

7]       By not refunding the fee to the complainants, the OP has also acted in defiance of the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)”, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

“5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’.

6.   The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal.

7.   This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extenso.

“It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.

The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/ Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate 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 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

 

Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.

                 This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.”

8.   Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.”

 

8]       The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Fiit Jee Ltd. Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath, 2012(1) CPJ 194 while considering the revision petition on identical facts, as involved in the present complaint, has categorically held that Fiit Jee Ltd. could not charge full advance fee for Two years and held the complainant entitled for receipt of refund of fee taken in advance from him by FIIT JEE. It is further held by the Hon’ble National Commission that such cases are consumer disputes within the meaning under the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Jai Preet Singh Kaushal Vs. FIIT JEE Ltd., decided on 14.11.2017 – 2018(I) CON LT 536 relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, has also held the charging of fee full in advance for two years course as illegal.

9]       The OP is not an accredited academic institution affiliated with any Board or University and is merely a Coaching Centre for providing Coaching to the students who aspire for admission to Engineering Colleges. The OP undoubtly is in dominating position and as such maneuvered to get the signature of parents of students on pre-settled printed enrollment undertaking. The parents under duress sign such undertaking with an anxiety to get his pupil admitted for best coaching to enable him/her for better performance in the competitions for admission to high ranked engineering/technical institutions/universities.  This is nothing but an emotional exploitation and cannot be acquiesced. If any child, after joining the coaching institute, failed to cope up with the coaching schedule or withdraw himself from the course, for the reasons whatsoever, he cannot be penalized by way of forfeiture of his entire money, which has been deposited by his parents with such coaching centre.  The Coaching Centres are entitled legally to charge fee only for the services, which they actually provide to the student and not more than that.

10]      The complainants have paid a huge amount believing that highly qualified and competent teachers will be engaged by OP to provide coaching to the students to make them able and competent to crack the target examination but OP did not place on file any record that they have engaged such qualified and competent teachers to teach the students to attain the required level of knowledge and education to crack the examination. It is open for the OP that they have provided a high level training and teaching to the students to crack targeted examination, in the absence of any proof placing on record the employment of competent teachers, the allegations of the complainants stand proved that they have collected huge amount from the parents of the students but failed to provide them adequate teaching and thus wasting their time & energy for which students and their parents/guardians were forced to withdraw from the above said courses which are non beneficial to them. A man of prudence who has deposited the huge amount for the studies and teaching of his child will not withdraw his ward/child unless teaching is not upto the mark. It is only in the situation where adequate teaching and training is not provided but a shere wastage of time and energy compels the parents/guardian to withdraw their children from such institute which has made the sale of education a business and does not stick to moral & ethics attached with education system. Thus, non providing competent & able teachers and healthy atmosphere to students to learn forces the students to left the course in between. Thus, the collecting money on the basis of showing dreams to the parents and students of providing them adequate level of education but practically not providing the same amounts not only to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice adopted by OP.

11]      In the light of above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OP.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with directions to the OP to refund the fee of Rs.1,66,842/- to the complainants after deduction of Rs.1000/- of Registration Charges, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual realization.

12]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06.09.2024                                                      

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER

as