FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
This is an application filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986 (as amendated)
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has been convinced by the advertisement of the OP published in electronic media, newspapers and magazines and the son of the complainant namely Tathagata Roy got the admission in the institute of the OP for weakened classes in order to preparation of JEE.
It is further stated by the OP that they charged a sum of Rs. 1,50,860/- only for such training of 2 years of classroom programme for JEE (advance).
It is further stated by the complainant that at the time of admission, the OP shown a good faculty members for such training but within a month all the renowned faculty were removed and fresh faculty members appointed, who had no advance knowledge of teaching JEE aspirants. Accordingly, a dispute cropped up between the guardian of JEE aspirants and administrators of the institute which turned into wriggle. In spite of several reminders from the guardians of the students, the OP did nothing for advancement of learning by appointing fresh teachers. Thereafter, on 25.05.2019 and 28.05.2019 the wriggle had been taken place and police of the local PS entered into the sight to keep peace in their institute.
It is the allegation of the complainant that at the time of admission the OP taken a sum of Rs. 1,50,860/- in advance from the students by showing the eminent faculty members for the training but subsequently, they removed those faculty members and appointed some new teachers without having any advance knowledge of the subject which is amounting to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Considering unrest situation the student and the guardians have to remove the aspirants from the institute including the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 04.09.2019 to the OP institute claiming the refund of the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,860/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, harassment and loss of valuable times.
But the OP did not give any response to that notice. Hence, without any other alternative the complainant has filed the written complainant with a prayer to give direction the OP to refund entire amount of Rs. 1,50,860/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/-.
The OP has contested the claim application by filing a WV/statement denying all the material allegation levelled against him.
It is the case of the OP that the petition of complaint as filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law because the complainant has no cause of action to file the case.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP because the OP was providing service but the complainant has not availed the service for the reason best known to him moreover, the fact and circumstances in the petition of complaint did not disclose any consumer dispute/cause of action against the OP under relevant provision of the CP Act,. 1986. Thus, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.
It is further case of the OP that the complainants son and complainant had gone through the contents of enrolment form and duly filled and signed the said enrolment form and chosen the fee payment plan/II for the course programme and submitted the enrolment form to the OP with request for enrolment of his son Tathagat Roy in 2 year CRP JEE (advance) weakened contract classes. The OP accordingly enrolled the ward of the complainant in 2 year CRP JEE (advance).
So, the question of refund the admission/course fee of Rs. 1,50,860/- to the complainant does not arise at all rather the petition of complaint is false baseless and is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the fact and circumstances the points of consideration are as follows:-
- Is the complainant is present its present form and in law?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file the case?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainants entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
All the points of consideration are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.
On careful consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case and perusal of the materials on record, it appears that this forum has got the jurisdiction to try this case and the complainant has cause of action to file the case.
From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, it appears that being convinced by the advertisement of the OP, the complainant interested for admission of his son Tathgat Roy to the institute of the OP for weakened classes in order to preparation of JEE (advance). The course fee has charged by the OP for such training of 2 year class room programme of JEE (advance) of a sum of Rs. 1,80,650/- and they have entered into the enrolment agreement with the OP to that effect from the fact of the case and also from evidence on record, it is found that the son of the complainant namely Tathagat Roy got admission in the institute of the OP for the training of 2 years weakened class room programme for the preparation of JEE (advance) at the time of admission. He got good faculty member for such training but surprisingly within a month all the renowned faculty members were removed by the OP and they appointed some fresh faculty members who had no advance knowledge of teaching of JEE aspirants. Hence, the dispute cropped up in between the students guardian and OP institute. Ultimately, on 25.05.2019 and 28.05.2019 they wriggled have taken place and police came from the local PS to keep peace in the institute. The OP though admitted that the Tathagat Roy, son of complainant got admission in his institute for getting weakened training of 2 years class room for JEE (advance) and they entered into enrolment agreement dated 24.01.2018. So, relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OP has been established by their evidence on record. It is the allegation of the complainant that they advertised for training of JEE (advance) with renowned faculty members. Subsequently, they removed them and appointed some fresh faculty members who had no advance knowledge for giving training of JEE (advance ). Naturally confrontation took place between the guardians student and OP institute.
The OP in its WV and evidence stated that the complainant and his son knowing fully well about the course and after going through all the rules and regulations of training programme of the institute have entered into enrolment contract on 24.01.2018 and they have chosen the course fees at their own accord.
So, all on a sudden they cannot claimed the refund of the course fees of Rs. 1,50,860/- because as per terms and conditions of the enrolment contract they are not entitled to get it back. but the OP failed to establish this case that they did not remove the renowned faculty member from the institute and appointed the fresh faculty members in that place. So, the allegation of the complainant that they were interested for the course of training programme because of the renowned faculty members but just after one month of the admission, the OP removed the faculty members and appointed some fresh faculty members in their place who had no advance knowledge of teaching of JEE (advance).
In that case, It is the view of this forum that the OP attracted the student by showing the renowned faculty members and when the OP institute got the student, they deprived the students from getting the teaching from the renowned faculty members and they removed those faculty members and appointed some faculty members who had no knowledge of teaching of JEE (advance). If initially the OP did not advertise with those renowned faculty members then the complainant would not be interested to give training of his son for JEE preparation in that institution.
Under such circumstances on a close scrutiny of the materials on record and considering the entire fact and circumstances, it is held by the forum that the OP institute had adopted unfair trade practice on the son of the complainant and other students that can be named as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Moreover, being disappointed and dissatisfied with the service of the OP institute, the complainant and his son when claimed the refund of the course fee of Rs. 1,80,650/-, the OP did not pay any heed on their claim and the OP turndown the claim of the complainant which caused wastage of valuation of time for the son of the complainant and also caused for their harassment, mental pain and agony.
So, it is further view of the forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all doubts.
In view of discussion made above, this forum is opined that the complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
All the points are thus considered and decided favourably to the complainant
The case is properly stamped.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP Fitzee Ltd. with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
The complainant do get the decree as prayed for.
The OP is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs 1,80,650/- to the complainant within 45 days from this date of order.
The OP is further directed to give compensation to the complainant of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony along with litigation cost of
Rs. 5,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order.
If the OP failed to comply the decree within the stipulated period then the complainant will be at liberty to execute the same as per law.
Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as mandated by the CP Act. The Judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the party.
