Case No.CC/391/2019

Date of Institution:-27.09.2019

Order Reserved on :-15.03.2024

           Date of Order :-25.04.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vijender Singh

S/o Sh. Prahalad Singh,

R/o C1A-1003, Sector-18B,

Samridhi Apartments,

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110078.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

FIITJEE Ltd.

Plot No. 47, Sector-12B,

Dwarka, New Delhi.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatthe complainant has enrolled his son AbhishekJangra in FIITJEE Dwarka for coaching of two years class room program for JEE (advance) regular weekly classes vide registration no. 1001041082412170079 and enrollment no. 115110910050 dated 11.02.2019. Total fee for this course was Rs.2,41,675/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five). Copy of registration/enrollment report, fee calculation sheet and acknowledgement receipt are annexed as Annexure-A.
2. The complainant had deposited demand draft no. 235097 of Rs.53,500/- and 06 PDCs of State Bank of India on 11.02.2019.  The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,86,625/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five)upto 30.05.2019.  The OP has charged 80% of the total fee within a period of one and half month of the class.  Bank statement in respect of DD and PDCs are annexed as Annexure-B.
3. The complainant son AbhishekJangra has attended classes for two and half months till 07.07.2019.  During that period, his son realized that the methodology of coaching was not on the line of assurance and found the services of the institute to be unsatisfactorily, deficient, inadequate and non-yielding. So, he decided to withdraw from the said institution.
4. The complainant has requested to cancel registration of his son and refund of his remaining fee.  The complainant has emailed his request at email ID Annexure-C.
5. The OP has not refunded the fee inspite of repeated requests to the OP. Hence, this act of OP constitutes unfair trade practice on part of the OP.  The complainant has alleged that it is a settled law that in case the student leaves in between or midsession or after attending for few days or months, he/she should not be denied refund of the fee for the remaining period, which he/she did not attend the classes.   The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.1,56,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred) alongwith Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for mental agony and harassment.
6. Notice of complaint was servedto OP.The OP has filed his reply and taking several preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in providing service by the OP. It is pertinent to mention here that there is not even a single allegation qua the deficiency in providing services. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides the definition of the deficiency under Section 2(g)(b) which is reproduced as under:-

“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and the manner of the performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for time being inforce or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

7. In the present case, no deficiency has ever been shown as alleged.  The complainant and his son had  made aware the terms and conditions of the OP before enrolling the complainant.  It was categorically and specifically made clear to the complainant and his son that as per terms and conditions of the enrollment form, fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances and the complainant had given undertaking to this effect.  The complainant and his son after going through all terms and conditions as mentioned in the enrolment form and information given, had given their consent and signed the declarations/undertaking appended therein.  The OP has alleged the complainant had entered into an agreement with the OP for hiring the services of the OP and as per terms of agreement complainant has given an undertaking not to claim the refund of fees under any circumstances and rather would pay the entire course fee.  The OP has alleged that the complainant was duly informed that once his ward admitted in the course then the fees deposited shall not be refunded under any circumstances.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In response to the written statement, the complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and denying the allegations leveled in the written statement.
9. Both the parties have filed affidavit of evidence as well as written arguments in support of their respective case.
10. On 15.03.2024, we have heard the arguments from both the parties and the case was reserved for order.
11. We have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.
12. It is the case of complainant thathe has enrolled his son AbhishekJangra in FIITJEE Dwarka for coaching of two years class room program for JEE (advance) regular weekly classes vide registration no. 1001041082412170079 and enrollment no. 115110910050 dated 11.02.2019.  Total fee for this course was Rs.2,41,675/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Five). The complainant had deposited demand draft no. 235097 of Rs.53,500/- and 06 PDCs of State Bank of India on 11.02.2019.  The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,86,625/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five) upto 30.05.2019.  The OP has charged 80% of the total fee within a period of one and half month of the class.  The complainant’s son AbhishekJangra has attended classes for two and half months till 07.07.2019.  During that period, his son realized that the methodology of coaching was not on the line of assurance and found the services of the institute to be unsatisfactorily, deficient, inadequate and non-yielding. So, he decided to withdraw from the said institution.  The complainant has requested to cancel registration of his son and refund of his remaining fee.  The complainant has emailed his request at email ID
13. It is admitted facts of both the parties that complainant son was enrolled for the course program for preparation of JEE and was provided the offer letter, course fee details, brochure, of OP, enrolment form and other requisite documents and details. It is also admitted facts of the OP that the complainant has paid Rs.1,55,425/-.  The OP has stated that the case of a contractual in nature and this case should not come to the Consumer Commission for redressal. As far as the plea of Arbitrator clause between the parties is concerned, the same is not relevant as Section 3 and Section 100 CPC do not bar in filing of such complaint, despite having their Arbitration clause between the parties.   The complainant’s son has attended the classes for two and half months and the complainant has requested the OP to cancel registration of his son and refund of his remaining fee but the OP has not refunded the remaining fee to the complainant.
14. It is settled law that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 696 wherein the Apex court has prohibited charging of advance fees for all semesters/years and even if it is conditions that the complainant had agreed with the terms and conditions of admission, it would only mean that he would be deemed to have agreed with the condition that fees of one semester/year would not be refunded, because the Opposite Party was not legally entitled to charge advance fees for two years. The student leaves in between or midsession or after attending for few days or months, he/she should not be denied refund of the fee for the remaining period, which he/she did not attend the classes.
15. The Hon’ble National Commission in FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Dr. MinathiRath, 2012 (1) CPJ 194, has categorically held that FIITJEE 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 FIITJEE.The OP was under obligation to refund the remaining fee to the complainant but the OP has not refunded the remaining fee to the complainant. We are satisfied that this acton behalf of OP constitutes unfair trade practice. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund of the remaining feeRs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand)to the complainant alongwth an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited feewithin 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which OP shall be liable to pay entire amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 25.04.2024at 3.30 PM.