Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/702

JITENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITZEE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution:21.11.13

Complaint case No.702 /13                                                             Date of Order:15.11.16

In the matter of

Jitender Kumar,

S/o Sh. Vishnu Dev,

R/o Khaddi Mohalla,

Jugal Kishor,

Thekedar Ki Gali,

Bhiwani-127021.                                                                                                   COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Fiitzee Ltd.,

Through its Director,

Fiitzee House, 29A,

Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-16.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

 

Mr. D.K. Goyal, Chairman,

Fiitzee House, 29A,

Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-16.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

 

Director(s),

Fiitzee House, 29A,

Kalu Sarai,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-16.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-3

 

2/-

Branch Incharge,

Punjabi Bagh Center, Fiitzee,

31,32 & 33 Central Market,

West Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi-26.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-4

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI (PRESIDENT

 

            Briefly the case of the complainant is that he took admission in one year extended classroom programme for JEE(Advance) with the Opposite Party-4 an  education institution for preparing IIT entrance exams on payment of requisite fee.  The complainant was told by Opposite Party-4 that if the complainant would not find the programme appropriate the fee shall be refunded after deduction of one month fee.  The complainant did not find the coaching classes as per his expectations and requested Opposite Party-4 to refund the fee.  Moreover, the complainant got selected in mechanical engineering course at Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, therefore, he was  unable to continue the coaching classes.  Therefore, on the suggestion of Opposite Party-4 complainant wrote a letter to Opposite Party-2 that he is unable to continue classes further due to bad health of his father.  The Opposite Party-2 vide letter dated 11.813 refused to refund the fee as per policy of the company.    Hence, the present complaint for directions to Opposite Parties to refund the fee received by the Opposite Parties and pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and  deficiency in service.  

            After notice Opposite Parties appeared and filed reply admitting that the complainant took admission with the Opposite Parties.    But asserted that they did not mislead the complainant and  the complainant himself left the course due to his selection in mechanical engineering and asserted that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service.  Hence, the consumer forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint under the provisions of the  consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   The complainant entered into an agreement with the Opposite Parties which is binding on the parties .   They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.       

 

3/-

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Parties wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in complaint and controverted the stand taken by the Opposite Party.  

            The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.   The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit dated 21.7.14.  The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of mark sheet, copy of registration card cum acknowledgement card, copy of provisional seat allotment letter, copy of score card, copy of student I.D. card, copy of letter addressed to Opposite Party-2, copy of letter dated 11.8.13, copy of ration card, copy of legal notice dated 8.10.13 and copy of recipts dated 9.10.12.   The Opposite Parties tendered evidence of Sh. Ashish Kumar Agarwal who reiterated stand taken in the reply and relied upon copy of enrolment form, copy of fee receipt, copy of enrolment contract, copy of hall ticket cum test fee receipt and copy of board resolution dated 21.9.13          

It is worthwhile to mention here that the matter was today fixed for written arguments of the parties.  But none appeared on behalf of the complainant.  The complainant did not appear  on previous hearings also  .  Therefore, this Forum has no option except to decide the matter on merits. 

We have heard learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/ issue is “whether Jitender Kumar  , complainant, is consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are service providers”?

      These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11)Supreme Court Cases 159 .  Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutionals are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no22532/12 titled P.T.KOSHY& ANR VS ELLEN CHARITABLE

4/-

TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12.  Similar view is taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ,GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 ,in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs  Fiitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, in Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B.POPLI, Revision Petition No 3496/2006 P.T.Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007  all decided on 14.11.11 by common order.   Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble  State Commission of Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fiitjee ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.

       Similar are the facts of the present case .The complainant  took admission with opposite parties educational Institution for  taking coaching for preparation of IIT entrance examination on payment of the requisite fee. He left the institution at his own.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.      The opposite parties  are imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble National Commission and  Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite parties are not service providers and the  complainant is not a consumer under the  Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has also failed to show that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. 

      Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  . Resultantly  the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :15.11.2016

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT