DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM NORTH-WEST,
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 977/2015
D.No._____________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. JEEVAN JYOTI D/o SH. HARSHWARDHAN,
R/o H. No. J-94 (FF), SOUTH EXTN.-1,
NEW DELHI-110049.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
.
G.S. WORLD,
(THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER/
MANAGER/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE),
HEAD OFFICE: 705, 2nd FLOOR,
MUKHERJEE NAGAR, MAIN ROAD,
OPP.-BATRA CINEMA, DELHI-110009. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 25.08.2015
Date of Decision: 22.07.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant was attracted by advertisement of OP’s coaching centre and visited the coaching centre in the 1st week of January-2015 and met Mr. Divyasen Singh, Coordinator of the said
CC No. 977/2015 Page 1 of 8
coaching centre and he provided the complainant all the extremely promising information regarding coaching schedule, prospectus, duration and fee structure etc. and he told the said coaching centre provides coaching mainly for preliminary examination and main examination for Indian Administrative Services (IAS) which is conducted by UPSC every year and he also said that the said coaching centre is a renowned and reputed one coaching for Civil Services Examinations and mostly operates in North India. The complainant further alleged that he also said that the said coaching centre completes whole the syllabus in semester wise in one year and the complainant was informed, during the counselling session the complainant informed the said coordinator of the said coaching centre about her probable departure for higher studies in U.S.A. and Mr. Divyasen Singh promised/assured to the complainant that the tuition fees will be refunded once her admission for higher studies in U.S.A. is confirmed and he also said that it is rule of the coaching centre that centre does not charge fees more than the services availed. Thereafter on said assurance from Mr. Divyasen Singh, the complainant took admission on 20.01.2015 for the session of 2015-2016 for the course of GS (prelims + mains examination) and the complainant paid Rs.55,000/- as full and final fees for the semesters in given year i.e. Rs.5,500/- by way of cash and Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque bearing no. 000004 dated
CC No. 977/2015 Page 2 of 8
21.01.2015 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, South Extn.-II, Delhi and the said cheque was encashed by Sh. Niraj Singh on 29.01.2015 who is the director of the said coaching centre. The complainant further alleged that OP after admission in said coaching centre for said course issued the student Identity Card to the complainant (admission no. 1049) and deliberately cited on the same back session i.e. 2014-2015 instead of 2015-2016 for grabbing whole fees and OP adopted such deliberate tactic to grab the fees of the complainant and OP violated the direction of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant further alleged that after receiving the letter of admission (I-20) in February-2015 from Everest University, U.S.A. for higher studies and visited to the said coaching centre with her father and informed about the same to the said coordinator of the coaching centre. Thereafter, the complainant finally left the said coaching centre in the first week of March-2015 and asked for refund of fee of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant further alleged that the complainant reminded to the coordinator Mr. Divyasen Singh about his promise/assurance to refund the tuition fees once the letter of admission arrives and the said coordinator assured to the complainant that the refund will be processed in no more than three working days and the complainant visited to OP after three
CC No. 977/2015 Page 3 of 8
working days but OP did not give pay attention towards refund of fees. The complainant further alleged that the complainant again visited OP and requested for refund from the said coordinator, then the said coordinator asked the complainant to request the refund of tuition fees in writing which the complainant promptly did but OP started avoiding the complainant again and again the complainant’s father sent a letter dated 29.05.2015 though speed post for the refund of tuition fees but OP did not respond to the letter of the complainant’s father and the complainant wasted her precious time visiting the said coaching centre many times but OP did not respond and continued to avoid the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant with her father being senior citizen and heart patient visited many times to OP’s coaching centre whenever called upon by OP but OP did not respond and given only hoax promise to the complainant and it was very upsetting and affected the health of the complainant’s father. The complainant further alleged that when the complainant visited OP again to ask the refund of the tuition fees again, OP stated abusing and scolding, the complainant and the complainant’s father and said that “Jao Jo Karna Hai Kar Lena Lekin Fee Refund Nahi Karunga”. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.07.2015 through Regd. Post/Courier to OP calling upon
CC No. 977/2015 Page 4 of 8
OP to refund the tuition fees to the complainant and the complainant suffered a lot of unfair trade practice by OP and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint prayed for directions to OP to refund the admission fees i.e. Rs.55,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and the complainant also sought cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed the written statement and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of pamphlet of OP, copy of receipt dated 10.02.2015 for a sum of Rs.55,000/- issued by OP, copy of Identity Card issued by OP, copy of Form, copy of appointment confirmation, copy of Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application (DS-160), copy of letter dated 29.05.2015 sent by the complainant to OP for refund of the tuition fees, copy of legal notice dated 13.07.2015 sent by the complainant through her Counsel to OP and copy of admission form.
CC No. 977/2015 Page 5 of 8
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP Sh. Ranjan Kumar, Authorized Representative of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the parties in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant has remained consistent throughout and there is nothing on record to disbelieve her case.
8. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on following case law:
i) In Revision Petition No.3365 of 2006 in case entitled FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath, Revision Petition No.1805 of 2007 in case entitled FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs B.B. Popli, Revision Petiton No. 2660 of 2007 in case entitled Brilliant Tutorials Vs. Rahul Dass, Revision Petition No.3496 of 2006 in case entitled P.T. Education & Training Services Ltd. Vs. Dr. Minathi Rath & Ors. and Revision Petition No. 3497 of 2006 in case entitled Career Launcher India Ltd. Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath & Ors. decided by Hon’ble National Commission vide common order dated 14.11.2011.
9. In the above Revision Petitions Hon’ble National Commission has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case entitled Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka reported as (2003) 6 SCC 696 wherein it has been held as under
“In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution feels that any
CC No. 977/2015 Page 6 of 8
particular students may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixeddeposits in a nationalized bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institute. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.”
10. Referring to the facts of the present case, it is revealed that OP has not disputed the fact that advance fees for whole of the course was collected from the complainant at the time of taking admission in the coaching institute. It is also not disputed by OP that OP’s representative gave assurance to the complainant for refund of fee in case the complainant obtains an admission for higher studies in USA. The complainant has sought refund of fee from OP on the ground that she has obtained admission for higher studies in USA and has produced copy of admission letter to OP. Even then OP failed to refund the fee to the complainant. The complainant has taken admission in the coaching institute run by OP on 20.01.2015 and the complainant requested OP for refund of fees in the first week of April-2015. It shows that the complainant has studied in the coaching center of OP for more than 2 months. Accordingly, we are of opinion relying on the above caselaws that OP ought to have refunded the proportionate fees which OP has failed.Accordingly,
CC No. 977/2015 Page 7 of 8
we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service.
11. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant the proportionate amount i.e.Rs.35,000/- which was paid by the complainant to OP.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
12. The above amount shall be paid by OPto the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failingwhich OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 22ndday of July, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 977/2015 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY :-SATYENDRA JEET
