Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/246/2011

Darla Sree Rama Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fitjee Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Rama Raju

04 Sep 2014

ORDER

       Registration of the Complaint:08-07-2011 
 Date of Order:04-09-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II,

AT VISAKHAPATNAM
Present:-

              1.Smt.K.Saroja, M.A., B.L.,

                President (FAC)                           

     2.Sri C.V.Rao, M.A.,B.L.,

                Male Member    

                

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
CONSUMER CASE NO.246/2011 

 

BETWEEN:

SRI DATLA SREE RAMA RAJU S/O LATE PERRAJU,

HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, PRESENT RESIDING AT

D.NO.50-37-6, SRI SAI ENCLAVE, TPT COLONY,

SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 

 

…COMPLAINANT

And:

1.FITJEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL ADMISSION OFFICE, FITJEE HOUSE-29 A,

KALU SARAI, SARVAPRIYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI.

 

2.THE PRINCIPAL, FITJEE VISAKHAPATNAM CENTRE,

D.NO.47-7-47, PLOT NO.87, OPP:NEHRU BAZAAR,

DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

…OPPOSITE PARTY 

This case coming on 19-08-2014 before this Forum in the presence of SRI D.S.RAMA RAJU, Advocate for the Complainant and of SRI K.V.R.MURTHY, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

 

O  R  D  E  R

(As per Smt.K.Saroja, Honourable President (FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.   The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has joined his Daughter D.Sri Satya in the 2nd Opposite Party college in Pinnacle Two Year Integrated School Programme for IIT JEE bearing Registration No.1102045412712090009 enrolment no.1110541020092 and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,71,611/-  for 1) Admission Fee of Rs.14,000/- 2) Examination Fee of Rs.6,000/-. 3) infrastructure cost fee of Rs.19,000/-, 4) Tuition fee of Rs.83,000/-, 5) AITS + GMP + RTPF Fee of Rs.4,000/- 6) Books and Study material of Rs.24,000/- and again on 14-06-2010.  He complainant had paid an amount of Rs.11,800/- for two years on 13-04-2010 and 14-06-2010. The said receipts were acknowledged by the Opposite Parties. The complainant noticed the flaws in the 2nd Opposite Party terrible and unsystematic way of teaching as such, the  complainant’s daughter failed to cope up the face of education. There is no efficacy and affable strength to monitor and motivate the students and it is untoward to expect a student to be highly self motivated before they have joined.  The complainant submits that she has not found any apparent growth or development but are seeing unwanted results. Due to the failure of the Opposite parties teaching approach the complainant’s daughter failed to get good marks and failure to get good rank. Hence, the complainant requested the 2nd Opposite Party to refund the amount for the 2nd year but the 2nd Opposite party refused to refund the amount to the Complainant. Then the complainant issued a Legal Notice on 7-6-2011 and the 2nd Opposite Party received the same and did not give reply nor refund the amount, hence, this complaint.

1.to refund the half of the amount of Rs.85,805/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a.,

2.to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service;

3. to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and failure to teach bitterly:

4. to pay costs of the complaint; and 

5.To grant such other relief or the reliefs as this Honourable Forum may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.   The 2nd Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the complainant by contending as can be seen from its counter, the 2nd Opposite Party received the amount as stated by the complainant is true. In order to ensure quality education uniform teaching standard and also keep in mind students interest does not fill the vacancy created by student drop out, the course mid way. No new student has been introduced in the batch in place of complainant’s daughter who had left the course mid way. The Opposite Party is self financed and self managed institute and run upon the fee collected from the students. Most of the expenditure is incurred in advance and also is of a fixed nature. The Opposite Party has to bear expenditure like lease of premises, salary of faculty and non-faculty staff, electricity and other expenses, preparation and printing of study materials irrespective of number of Students and Batches. Further, total fee includes tax as applicable and cost of study material supplied to the students. So, the Opposite Parties have no liability to pay any amounts and other reliefs as prayed by the complainant. The complainant and his daughter signed on the declaration form by themselves and they studied thoroughly and signed on the declaration forms.

3.   At the time of enquiry, both parties filed affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions. Exhibits A1 to A4 are marked for the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B5 are marked for the Opposite parties. Both parties filed citations to support their contentions. Heard both sides.

Exhibits A1 is the Enrolment report cum course fee dated 13-04-2010, Exhibit A 2 is the fee receipt dated 14-06-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Legal Notice dated 07-06-2011, Exhibit A4 is the acknowledgement.

Exhibits B1 is the Hall ticket issued in the name of complainant’s daughter dated 27-12-2009, Exhibit B2 is the performance report 29-01-2010 of the complainant’ daughter, Exhibit B3 is the Enrolment Form dated 06-03-2010, Exhibit B4 is the Enrolment Report cum Receipt dated 13-04-2010, Exhibit B5 is the fee receipt dated 14-06-2010.

 

4.   The fact shown from the Exhibit B3 that the Opposite Party supplied Terms and Conditions to the complainant and his daughter signed on the declaration forms. Exhibit B3 “terms and conditions:- I understand that if my son/daughter/ward withdraws from the Program to him/her is rendered vacant, the same will not/cannot be filled up by any other candidate and a vacancy created in the batch due to withdrawal of a student after the starting of classes or upto 2 days prior to the same cannot be filled in any case, therefore, I understand that FITZEE shall suffer irreparable losses in case of non-payment of remaining fee of the installment plan, hence, it will be unethical not to honour the Post Dated Cheque(s). I have opted for installment fee plan and have submitted the Post Dated Cheque(s) as per the details given below”. 

The complainant relied upon the judgment of Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Bombay, reported in (1992) I CPJ 105, held in ABEL PACHECO GRACIAS  VS. PRINCIPAL, BHARATI VIDAYAPTH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING “According to appellant on the next day of the declaration of the result of the Joint Entrance Examination, he applied for refund of the fees and therefore, there was no delay to claim the refund of the tuition fees. It is true that the result of the joint Entrance Examination was declared on 24-08-1989 and application for refund was made on 25-08-1989. Rule (1) dated 27-09-88 states that an application for the refund of fees has to be made 15 days prior to the last date of admission which in the present case was 31-8-1989. On the basis of the facts appearing in this case, we find that there was no delay on the part of the appellant to approach for refund of the tuition fees. The appellant could not have approached for the refund before the declaration of Joint Entrance Examination result. Thus, the Possible delay in declaration of Joint Entrance Examination result was not taken into account while framing the aforesaid Rule. It is common knowledge that the admission to IIT Engineering College is regarded as prestigious and students prefer it. While framing the rules, it is obvious that the contingency of late declaration of Joint Entrance Examination results was not taken care of by the Director of Technical Education. It is a well know fact that in their anxiety to secure admission in professional colleges, students apply for admission in several institutions and deposit the necessary fees. It is also a matter of common experience that the education institutions insist for the payment of entire annual fees as a condition precedent for admitting a student. The students deposit the entire fee for the whole session in order to secure the admission. He has no choice. At the same time, students appear for the joint entrance examination. If a student qualifies in the Joint Entrance Examination, he prefers to join the IIT and gets his admission cancelled which he has secured by way of abundant caution. Under these circumstances, if the tuition fees are not refunded as a consequence of cancellation of admission, the parents of students will have to suffer loss of thousands of rupees in their anxiety of secure the admission to their words in professional colleges. We are aware that there have to be rules and procedures for admission but we cannot close our eyes to the consumer aspect that these rules have to be reasonable, just, realistic and rational. It clearly indicates that the respondent is taking the shelter of the aforesaid rule to appropriate the tuition fee of a student to whom the respondent has not rendered any service of teaching. WE are at a loss to know that when there is no service how the tuition fees of a student can be retained. WE do not believe that the aforesaid rules is meant to extend illegal benefits to the educational institution. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we find that refusal to refund the tuition fees of appellants son is not only reprehensible but unjust, irrational and illegal. The rule cannot frustrate the legitimate rights of a consumer to get redress in relation to his right of refund of tuition fees.  It clearly indicates that the respondent is taking the shelter of the aforesaid rule to appropriate the tuition fee of a student to whom the respondent has not rendered any service of teaching. We are a loss to know that when there is no service, how the tuition fees of a student can be retained. We do not believe that the aforesaid rule is meant to extend illegal benefits to the educational institution. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we find that refusal to refund the tuition fees of appellants son is not only reprehensible but unjust, irrational and illegal. The rule cannot frustrate the legitimate rights of a consumer to get redress in relation to his right of refund of tuition fees. Thus, there was no loss suffered by the respondent due to cancellation of the admission by appellant’s son. While parting with this order, we would like to mention that there are numerous private engineering and other, colleges in the State. The students are required to cancel their admissions for variety of reasons. If a student has cancelled admission for genuine reasons, he should be entitled to refund f his tuition fees. The principle of refund is well recognized in everyday life i.e., in case of travel by railway, planes or other modes. Refusal to refund is a penal action. A student is essentially a consumer of services in an education institution” Therefore, when there is no service, they have no right to collect appropriate fees. If it insists to collect fees without imparting education, it will amount to deficiency in the service of the education institution. It also amounts to illegal enrichment and cannot be said to be object of any educational institution”.

The Opposite parties filed two citations of 1) Honourable AP State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, held in M/s Fitjee Ltd., and another vs. Ms.Sindh Choudary and 2) Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held in Brilliant Classes vs. Shri Ashbel Sam. But the citations filed by the OPs are not applicable to the present case. The facts in the present case are different.

5.   The point that would arise for determination in the case is: 

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of     the Opposite Party? if so, Whether the Complainant is entitled to the      reliefs asked for?

6.   After careful perusal of the case record, this forum finds that the complainant paid Rs.1,71,611/-  towards fee for 2 years on 13-4-10 and 14-06-2010. There is no dispute regarding the fee. AS the complainant’s daughter did not get good marks and get good rank in the examinations, the complainant wants to discontinue his daughter’s studies in the 2nd OP college. So, he requested them to refund the half of the amount as paid by him for two years at a time because his daughter did not attend the classes for 2nd year. Though, the OPs received total amount for two years from the complainant, they did not refund the same basing on their statements in their counter as well as in their affidavit and written arguments. Terms and Conditions supplied by the 2nd Opposite Party to the complainant, the complainant and his daughter signed on the declaration forms. “terms and conditions:- I understand that if my son/daughter/ward withdraws from the Program to him/her is rendered vacant, the same will not/cannot be filled up by any other candidate and a vacancy created in the batch due to withdrawal of a student after the starting of classes or upto 2 days prior to the same cannot be filled in any case, therefore, I understand that FITZEE shall suffer irreparable losses in case of on payment of remaining fee of the installment plan, hence it will be unethical not to honour the Post Dated Cheque(s). I have opted for installment fee plan and have submitted the Post Dated Cheque(s) as per the details given below”. Moreover, the OPs failed to produce any piece of evidence to establish that no new student has been admitted in place of complainant’s daughter. So, there was no loss suffered by the Opposite Party due to discontinue of the Complainant’s daughter. Therefore, when there is no service given by the Opposite Party, they have no right to collect appropriate fee from the Complainant.  It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to refund of the half of the fee, with interest, some compensation and costs too.

7.   In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties to refund an amount of Rs.85,805/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and five only) with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of Legal Notice i.e., 07-06-2011  till the date of actual realization; the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.  Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 04th day of September, 2014. 

Sd/-                                            sd/-

Male Member                                    President 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS 

For the Complainant:
SL.No    
Date    
Description of the document    
Remarks

Ex-A1    
13-04-2010    
Enrolment report cum course fee     
Original

Ex-A2    
14-06-2010    
fee receipt     
Original

Ex-A3    
07-06-2011    
Legal Notice     
Office Copy

Ex-A4    
     
Acknowledgement    
Original 

 
For the Opposite Parties :-  

SL.No    
Date    
Description of the document    
Remarks

Ex-B1    
27-12-2009    
Hall ticket     
Original

Ex-B2    
29-01-2010    
Performance report     
Original

Ex-B3    
06-03-2010    
Enrollment form     
Original

Ex-B4    
13-04-2010    
Enrollment report cum receipt, course fee    
Original

Ex-B5    
14-06-2010    
Fee Receipt     
Original 

Sd/-                                      Sd/-

Male Member                                President