Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/63/2020

Mrs. Pooja Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

FITJEE Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Sep 2024

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	63 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	27.01.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	04.09.2024

 

 

 

 

Mrs.Pooja Goyal, R/o #1279, Sector 37 B, Chandigarh

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

Incharge FIITJEE Ltd. SCO 321-322, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

   … … … Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.S.K.SARDANA,                MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by:    Sh.Chetan Gupta, Counsel for Complainant (through VC).

Sh.Vivek Lamba, Counsel for OP.

 

 

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

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that complainant got her son ‘Sanchit Goyal’ enrolled with OP for receiving the coaching for 9^th class and paid a sum of Rs.51,700/- through cheques, i.e. Rs.31,000/- vide banker cheque No.015893 dated 15.11.2018 and Rs.20,700/- vide cheque No.000028 dated 29.11.2018, encashed by OP on 10.12.2018. It is stated that complainant’s son did not avail the coaching services and requested the OP to refund the fee vide letter dated 07.02.2019 (Annexure A), reminders letter dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure A1) & 03.06.2019 (Annexure A2) and final notice dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure A4) but to no avail. Hence, 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 refund Rs.51,700/- paid for coaching along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

 

2]       The OP has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that it was categorically and specifically made clear to the complainant and his 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 his parents, after going through the contents of enrolment form, duly filled and signed enrolment form and submitted the same with OP for enrolment in Four Year CRP for JEE (Advanced) – Weekend Contact Classes and accordingly complainant was enrolled in the said course. It is stated that total fees for 4 year course program after scholarship of 35% on tuition fee came to Rs.3,18,323/- including GST of Rs.48,557/- but the complainant had made payment of Rs.51,700/- only against the total course fee and had issued post dated cheques for remaining course fee.

    It is stated that OP in order to give best results and keeping in mind the students interest does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway and the seat remains vacant through the course program. It is stated that the complainant’s son left the course midway as he was already well aware about the terms of OP and it is no refund policy. It is further 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 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]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP as made in their written version. 

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]       It is observed that fee is paid by mother of the child; hence, she is consumer of the OP whereas child is beneficiary consumer of the OP.

7]       In the present complaint, OP failed to prove on file that complainant has attended any classes and thereafter left the course. When the complainant not availed the coaching services from the very inception of the course then he is entitled to refund as no services have been provided to him by OP. In the present complaint, OP has neither rendered any services to the consumer nor refunded his amount which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Moreover, the OP also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging fee of four years coaching in advance from complainant by means of Manager’s Cheque/Post Dated Cheques, which is also illegal.

8]       By not refunding the fee to the complainant, 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.”

 

9]       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.

10]      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 enrolled with the OP institute, 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.

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.51,700/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of encashment of the cheques in question, till the date of its actual realization.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

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

04.09.2024                                                      

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER

as