DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.78/2010
Shri Suraj Sabharwal,
S/o Ashish Sabharwal,
28F, J/A Hari Nagar,
G-8 Area, DDA Flats,
New Delhi-110064 ….Complainant
Versus
- Fostiima Business School,
75-76, Amrit Nagar,
South Extn., Part-1,
New Delhi-110003.
- Sri Balaji HRD Trust,
75-76, Amrit Nagar,
South Extn., Part-1,
New Delhi-110003. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 03.02.10 Date of Order : 24.03.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant was intending to take admission in BBA regular course affiliated to some good recognized university with all modern facilities, good faculty and nice management for the session 2009-12. Complainant took admission in BBA course for the session 2009-12 at OP-1 affiliated to Karnataka University on 25.07.2009 and deposited Rs.55,000/- towards Ist and IInd installments on 25.07.2009. Session was to commence on 29.07.2009 but OP-1 started it on 10.08.2009. After taking admission, the complainant found some problems such as :-
- No books and related course materials were provided/ prescribed.
- Timings of the classes were very irregular.
- No proper/ fixed classroom was allotted.
- The faculty provided did not match the list of faculty provided.
- Teachers and faculty were not punctual.
- There was no proper time table / schedule of classes.
- Registration with Karnataka University was not done.
It is submitted that a complaint regarding the problems was given to the management of OPs and written assurance, duly signed on the letter was given by the director of the OPs. It is submitted that neither OP-1 nor OP-2 was authorized to conduct BBA course independently by their own and the BBA course was conducted by a third party i.e. Dayananda Sagar Global Education, Bangalore and also the course was not approved by / affiliated to Karnataka University and the same was through Karnataka State Open University which fact was confirmed by the Director, Dayananda Sagar Global Education, Bangalore. It is submitted that the calendar of events for all the courses including BBA was approved by Dean, Karnataka State University on 04.10.2009 and also commencement of sale of the prospectus and application was to start on 07.10.2009 but the OPs had granted admission to the complainant in BBA course on 20.06.2009 i.e. before the date of calendar of events / sale of prospectus were announced by the University and Dayananda Sagar Global Education. The complainant was under immense mental tension that he had wasted two months of valuable time. Under such circumstances the complainant had no other option but to leave and he applied for withdrawal from the BBA course and requested for full refund of fees paid to OP-1. It is submitted that OPs adopted the dilatory tactics again and wasted 10 to 12 more days in deciding the refund request and finally deducted Rs.25,000/- and approved a refund of Rs.30,000/- out of the total fee of Rs. 55,000/- paid to the OPs. The complainant sent request to the OPs to reconsider the refund case once again but no action was taken by the OPs which resulted in causing immense mental tension, harassment, loss of valuable time to him. The complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP-1 & OP-2 to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.25,000/- (the deduction done from the fees paid by the complainant).
- Direct the OPs to pay cost of Rs. 70,000/- towards loss of precious time of a student, damages, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the acts of OPs.
OPs in the written statement have not denied that the complainant was granted admission in BBA course in July, 2009 but according to them, the complainant was duly informed and was fully aware that the BBA course was affiliated to Karnataka State Open University, Mysore. It is submitted that since few students got themselves enrolled for BBA course, it was decided by the Management to postpone the session with a hope of getting more students enrolled in the said course. It is submitted that the institution is well organized and recognized institute with all modern and good facilities and good faculty and the management takes all the pains to provide the best facilities including residential facilities to its students. The complainant after having been satisfied about the reputation of the institute from various sources took admission in BBA regular course. It is denied that the complainant faced problems as alleged. Moreover, all the complaints of the complainant were duly replied to and were attended to by the OPs on immediate basis. Since the complainant was not interested in continuing in the institute he has made false and baseless allegations. It is submitted that as per the policies, the complainant was not entitled to any refund but still the management of the OPs by taking a humanitarian approach decided to refund Rs. 30,000/-to the complainant after making necessary deductions. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and stated that he was never informed about the affiliation with Karnataka State Open University, Mysore. He has reiterated his prayer for directing the OPs to refund Rs.25,000/- deducted by the OPs.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Y.D. Dangri, General Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed copy of blank application form as annexure-A wherein it is inter-alia mentioned as follow:-
Courses Offered | University Affiliation | Course Applied | Registration Fee (in Rs.) |
BBA | KARNATAKA | [ ] | 250.00 |
The OP vide letter dated 24.07.2009 informed the complainant regarding starting of course from 29.07.2009 as annexure-B. However, annexure-C is the copy of some circular / notice posted on 31.08.2009. The below mentioned portion is important :-
“Business School has the largest group of IIM educated faculty APPROVED BY/ AFFIILATED TO Pondicherry University & Karnataka University, COURSES; BBA, PGDM and Progrm in Mathematical Finance.”
The complainant vide letter dated 10.09.2009 [copy annexure-D(ii)] informed the OPs regarding shortcomings provided by the OPs in the BBA session. The complainant has filed the copy of the calendar of events as approved by Dean, Karnataka State Open University on 04.10.2009 as annexure-F. Annexure-G relates to the installments paid or to be paid by the complainant. The OPs vide letter dated 12.10.2009 approved the refund of Rs.30,000/- out of the fees deposited by the complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 13.10.2009 (copy Annexure-I) requested the OPs to reconsider his request for refund of total amount and returned the cheque of Rs.30,000/- to the OPs.
As per the OPs’ written statement, the classes could not be started in time since only few students had enrolled for BBA course and it was decided by the Management to postpone the session with the hope of getting more students in the said course. As the classes were not started the complainant requested to refund the fees. The OPs after deduction of Rs. 25,000/- refunded Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. The OPs have not filed the copy of the prospectus which may contain any clause/ stipulation that “the fee once paid be not refundable”. The onus to prove these facts was on the OPs but, however, they have failed to file prospectus and full papers. As the OPs have admitted that the classes were not started in time, therefore, the complainant had requested to refund the fees.
The prayer of the complainant in his affidavit is to the effect that the OPs is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to him which the OPs did not pay out of the fee deposited by him. It is in the penultimate para of the letter dated 13.10.09 (copy Annexure –I) in which it is written as follows:
I am returning the cheque sent by you. Details of the cheque are given below:
Also I am not very pleased to say, I’ve not received any reply of my e-mail sent to you. It seems to me that you are not ready to reconsider the refund case. In that case now I am free to take further action in this regard.”
This averment is totally inconsistent with the plea taken by the complainant in the complaint, replication as well as the averments made in the affidavit. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept that the complainant had infact refunded the amount of Rs.30,000/- sent to him on behalf of the OPs vide the cheque as detailed in the last paragraph of the letter dated 13.10.09 (copy Annexure–I). Hence, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and also the fact that the OPs could not force the complainant to wait for starting of the session at a later date irrespective of the fact that the delay would certainly result into wasting of the valuable time and future carrier prospectus of the complainant, we hold the OPs guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs jointly and severally shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.25000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 24.03.18.
