Delhi

East Delhi

CC/172/2015

RAMAVATAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FITJEE - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

             CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.      172/2015

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              13/03/2015

                                                                                                   Order reserved on              01/12/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       04/12/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr. Ramavtar Singh, adult 

S/o- Sh Jas Ram Singh

R/o- 4123, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, 201012  ……...…………….Complainant

                                                     

                                                                     Vs

FIIT JEE Ltd.

5^th Floor, Roots Tower

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…………………………………………………Opponent

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh      President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                Member                   

                     

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case      

                                                                                         

Complainant Ramautar Singh has filed this complaint against OP/FIIT JEE under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Complainant’s son Master Money K Singh got admitted at OP centre on 30/07/2013 and deposited required fee Rs 1,34,092/- as first installment for two year class room program (advanced) course and after choosing plan 2^nd,  for depositing the fee, so deposited fee and OP gave a discount of Rs 22,023/-after filling the enrolment form (Ex CW1/1, 1A to 1-O). The 2^nd year fee would be deposited in the second year for Rs 76,735/-.

It was stated that after studying for about four months, complainant did not see any development in his son who was studying in class 11^th, so intimated OP to return the fee, but did not get any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, various emails were sent for the refund of fee paid to OP on 30/01/2014, 01/02/2014 and on 06/02/2014 (Ex CW1/2, 2A to 2C).

When no reply was sent by OP, complainant approached OP office for refund of fee on 08/02/2014 and gave a written note on 10/02/2014 (Ex CW1/3). The complainant further stated that a post dated cheque was also en cashed by OP which was given to OP as a part of fee and intimating not to cash, but that PDC was also en cashed by OP. Seeing unfair attitude of OP, filed this complaint for refund of entire amount paid Rs 1,03,692/- with interest and compensation Rs 5 Lakh for mental harassment and financial loss.    

OP submitted their written statement through their AR, Mr Ashish Kumar Agarwal who was authorized under resolution of OP as marked Annexure OP/1 and denied all allegations as incorrect and wrongly alleged as there was neither any deficiency in their services nor any unfair trade practice was done for complainant. It was admitted that complainant son was admitted in the said course as marked his enrolment form zerox as marked Ex. OPI/I. It was stated that complainant withdrew his son voluntarily from the course after attending said course for over four months and demanded refund of his fee which was denied as per terms and condition of enrolment form. 

OP also stated that the present complaint was not maintainable in reference to Honble Supreme Court judgment–“PT Koshy vs Ellen Charitable Trust where it was laid down that- Education Institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc. , there cannot be a question of deficiency of service”.

It was stated that complainant opted weekend regular classes for his son for two years course tenure and all the conditions were well read over by them and had signed too making a privity of contract with OP. It was admitted that complainant’s son was admitted after proper personal interview and taking written consent. As OP were self financed and self managed institute which runs on fee collected from students and had to bear all the expenses of institute like lease rent, salary of faculty and staff, electricity etc. and various other future expenditures, so there was no deficiency in services. 

OP had also taken view of law laid down in FIIT JEE vs Mayank Tiwari (FA 244/2014) where it was reaffirmed same view was taken in PT Koshy vs Ellen Charitable Trust. As complainant had signed declaration where all terms and conditions had been explained clearly, so OP had acted in accordance to the enrolment form conditions.  

Complainant submitted his evidences on affidavit and re-affirmed on oath that all facts and evidences as complete filled Enrolment Form (Ex CW1/1 to 10), Fee details (Ex  CW1/11) and hall ticket (Ex CW1/4),  with residential proof as ration card (Ex CW1/5) were on record.

OP had also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Ashish Kumar Agrawal, AR to OP and affirmed on oath that all the acts and evidences submitted as evidences were true and as per terms and condition of the admission rules. It was stated that their enrolment form contains all information in detail and only after acceptance of all conditions, admission was given to the successful candidates. In this case also Mst. Maney K Singh was a successful candidate so admission was given.  After attending weekend regular classes for over four months, he withdrew himself and asked for refund of fee which was not possible for refund as batch was also full and course was continued. The refund was denied in reference to many landmark judgments of higher court where OP was not a commercial institutions and doing any unfair trade practice.  OP relied upon judgments references submitted on record.  

OP also submitted an application for dismissal of complaint based on law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in above mentioned cases.    

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels, file perused and order was reserved.  During the course of arguments, complainant relied on citation “Registrar Shanguma Arts, Science Technology and Research Academy vs Consumer Protection Council, Trichy & other, RP 4489/2013 NCDRC, decided on 13/11/2014. OP also submitted that complainant is not consumer, so complaint be dismissed.     

We have gone through the facts and evidence on affidavit, it was clear that complainant had taken admission at OP institute and had paid part of fee through DD to OP and through PDC cheques and later intimated OP not to encash the cheque and subsequently withdrew his son from the course after attending over four months weekend regular classes.  

Before coming to the conclusion, we have also gone through other related judgments pertaining to the same issues. Some of them have been reproduced as under-

• FIIT JEE vs Harish Soni-RP 2054/2013NC decided on 08/10/2015- it was held that “As regards the terms stipulating that the student withdrawing from the coaching class midway will not be entitled to seek any refund of the fee deposited by him being on unfair trade practice, we are of the view that in a case where the seat vacated on account of withdrawal by a student during the currency of the course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against the vacant seat, refusal of the coaching centre/institute of refund of the fee cannot be said to be an unfair trade practice”. 
• FIIT JEE Ltd vs Nitish Aggarwal- RP 3673/2013 NC, decided on 07/04/2016- the same view of supra was taken. 
• FIIT JEE Ltd. vs Balavignesh – RP 2684/2014,
• FIIT JEE Ltd vs Sajjan Kumar Gupta RP 4476/2013,
• Mayank Tiwari vs FIIT JEE Ltd. RP 4335/2014 and
• FIIT JEE Ltd. vs Varjeet Walia RP 1375/2014

In all above citations, the same view was adopted that complainant was not a consumer and complaints were dismissed.     

We have also gone through in detail in reference to the above mentioned citations and seen that Education was not a service under Sec. 2(d) of the Act as held by Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs Rajappa & others (AIR 1978 SC 548) where it was held that-

‘‘though Educational Institutions carry out a number of activities for its administration including that of collecting fee for holding classes, conducting examinations, evaluation of marks and also declaration of results, all are components of concept of imparting education and in my view, they are not severable holding that while collection of fee for holding classes is a service rendered by the educational institutions for consideration, the rest are statutory functions not depending on contract or hiring of services of educational institutions.” 

 

Apex court also had similar view in Unnikrishanan vs State of AP (1993)1SCC645 and here it was said that –

“Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one opposed to the ethos and traditions and sensibilities of education has never been treated a trade or business in this country since time immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty”.

Similar view was taken by NCDRC in Registrar, University of Bombay vs Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (FA 284/1992) I (1994) CPJ 146(NC). Here also it stated that -

“Checking mark sheets or re evaluation answer books is not performing a ‘service’ which had been hired or availed of for consideration”

 

We have also seen citation - Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 1569 where Apex court placed reliance on Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 and said that -

“Education is not a commodity and that such matters cannot be entertained by the Forums under the Act. Education Institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service”.

 

Analyzing citation submitted by the complainant (supra) is not applicable as directions were given to release the original documents by OP and complainant did not attend any classes.

So, taking references of above all citations where a law has been laid down that who so ever take admission in education institution and withdrew voluntarily after attending course and refusal to refund the fee decision by OP was correct as per the terms of enrolment form.    

Thus we have come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency of OP in refusal to refund the fee paid. Considering the terms of the enrolment form, complainant was not entitled for any refund. Hence, this complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.    

The order copy be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations,2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                                                              Shri  Sukhdev Singh - President