CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/80/19
Date of Institution:- 18.03.2019
Order Reserved on:- 21.02.2024
Date of Decision:- 24.05.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
PreetiAgarwal
R/o B-801, Chandralok Cooperative
Group Housing Society, Plot No.13,
Sector-19-B, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
FIITJEE Ltd.
FIITJEE House, Plot Number 47,
Sector-12B, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
.…..Opposite Party
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 23.04.2018 her son ShubhamAgarwal has joined the OP for Pinnacle Programme and attended classes for four days before leaving the course on 27.04.2018 due to unsatisfactory services. The OP was informed and even email was sent about the discontinuation of the services. The academic coordinator was asked to refund the fees but in vain. They requested for refund through National Consumer Helpline. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP has filed the reply wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, cause of action are taken. The enrollment agreement with the OP was not signed under coercion or duress. There is no deficiency of service. The complainant was made aware of the term and conditions of the OP as fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances. The complainant has registered and appeared in the test dated 24.12.2017 and qualified the exam and enrolled on 24.01.2018 with OP under pinnacle-two year Integrated School Programme for IIT-JEE. The OP does not fill the vacancy of a student who leaves the course midway so the complainant is not entitled for refund. The OP is self-financed and self-managed institute and such matters cannot be entertained by the Commission. The student has left the course midway as he was unable to cope up with the study of the coaching institution.
- The complainant has filed rejoinder wherein she has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
- The parties were directed to file the evidence.
- The complainant has filed herown affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint.
- The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh.MridulPathak, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement.
- We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP and perused the entire material on record.
- The perusal of the material on record shows that Preeti Agarwal is mother of Shubham Agarwal. Shubham Agarwal has taken admission in two year pinnacle programme of the OP. Shubham Agarwal has attended classes only for four days and left the course due to unsatisfactory services.
- The present complaint has been filed by mother of Shubham Agarwal. The complaint should have been filed by Shubham Agarwal.
Shubham Agarwal was less than 18 years old on the day of filing of the complaint i.e. 15.02.2019. The complaint should have been filed by Shubham Agarwal (minor) through his next friend and guardian i.e. Smt . Preeti Agarwal.
- Smt. Preeti Agarwal is not a consumer whereas Shubahm Agarwal is a consumer.
- The complaint has not been filed by consumer through his next friend and guardian so compliant filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the consumer to file the complaint in accordance with law.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 24.05.2024.
