Delhi

East Delhi

CC/593/2016

SAURAB - Complainant(s)

Versus

IILM - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 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.-     593/2016

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              09/09/2016

                                                                                                   Order reserved on              01/09/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                      04/09/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr. Saurabh Kumar, adult 

S/0- Malkhan Singh

R/o – R 109, Ramesh Park,  

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…….…………………………...…………….Complainant

                                                     

                                                                     Vs

The Director,

IILM Business School

B- 11/16, MCIE, Mathura Road,

New Delhi 110044…………….………………………………………………Opponent

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                   Dr P N Tiwari                Member                   

                     

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief -

This consumer complaint was transferred from CDRF X / Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi after complainant moved an application on dated 16/10/2015 for a short date for hearing his case from the Forum X, but on the ground of shortage of staff in the Forum, the President of Forum CDRF X forwarded a letter to the Registrar, State Commission, Delhi for transferring this case to any other Forum vide dated 16/03/2016. The Honble State Commission passed the order and directed the consumer to appear before CDRF East / this Forum on dated 31/08/2016 vide its order dated 28/07/2016 in MA-10/2015. So, the complainant appeared on 09/09/2016 for regular proceedings.

This complaint case pertains to Educational institute where coaching was taken and later asked for refund of his fee paid to the institution as OP.     

 

Facts of the case                                                                                              

The complainant, Saurabh Kumar was searching for a good University/institution to pursue his course in International Business in MBA in academic year 2012, came across an advertisement of IILM Business School at Mathura Road, New Delhi as OP had highest success rate in their coaching in MBA studies. So, he visited the office of OP and inquired about the course and its affiliation with related institutions/ Universities. It was told by OP that their institution was affiliated with Punjab Technical University (in short PTU) and were awarding dual degree from IILM also After getting convinced and confirmation letter from OP, complainant deposited requisite fee  a sum of Rs 1,19,700/- (Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/1A and Ex CW1/2).  

 

After attending his classes for few weeks, came to know that OP was not affiliated with PTU in International Business course and also came to know that infrastructure was also not proper and even laptops were also not provided during the first semester and during industrial visits which were compulsory for the course chosen. Thereafter complainant visited OP office and asked for refund of his fee paid, but it was denied by OP. So, complainant sent two legal notices for refund of fee paid and compensation for financial loss suffered by the complainant (Ex CW1/3) which were not replied by OP.

 

Complainant also filed his case Mediation Centre of this Forum, but could not get any relief as OP failed to turn up, so Mediation case was closed (Ex CW1/4).

Thus complainant through his complaint claimed refund of his fee paid to OP a sum of Rs 1,19,700/ with 24% interest till realized with compensation Rs 50,000/- for mental harassment and litigation charges Rs 5,000/-

OP submitted written statement and all allegations were denied as wrong and incorrect. It was stated there was neither any deficiency in their services nor any unfair trade practice was done for complainant in refunding his first semester fee deposited. It was stated that their institution was affiliated with PTU (Ex OPW1/1).  It was stated that complainant was admitted in the said course as marked in his admit card and examination schedule as his course was a distance learning and weekend course (Ex. OPW1/2) with marks obtained in his semester exam whose result was also declared as passed (Ex. OPW1/3). Hence, there was no deficiency in their services, so this case was misconceived and be dismissed.   

Complainant submitted his rejoinder with evidence to written statement and denied facts stated by OP and stated that their all contents narrated in his complaint were correct. It was also stated that complainant was a victim of Sept. 2009 bomb blast and had suffered injuries and at the time of interview, he was not fully recovered at the time of admission. The complainant had submitted proof of fee paid to the OP besides zerox of his syllabus of MBA which depict various photographs of students. He submitted affidavit of his own and affirmed all the facts and evidence narrated in his complaint.

OP had also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Suman Suhag, Authorised Representation 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 institution. It was stated that their admission voucher contains all information in detail and only after acceptance of all conditions, admission was given and fee was deposited for one semester for which he had attended his classes and had also appeared in his exam. So, it was stated that in such condition, fee was not refunded.  Complainant submitted written arguments and OP also submitted their arguments with higher courts citations applicable to them and taken on record. 

 

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels, file perused and order was reserved.

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.

We have gone through some relevant citations applicable in such case 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”. 

We have seen as 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”.

 

We have also seen citation as –

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”.

 

So taking references of above citations where law has been laid down for student/s or complaints who takes admission in education institution and refusal to refund the fee decision by OP were correct as per the terms of their syllabus.

But we have also seen the fee deposit receipt (Ex CW1/2) vide receipt no. 9180 dated 27/11/2009 where complainant had deposited a sum of Rs 1,19,700/-where Rs 5000/-were security deposit as refundable and examination fee for Ist, IInd, IIrd and IVth semester was Rs 2200/-, but complainant had appeared only in one (Ist) semester.

       

Thus we have come to the conclusion that this complaint has some merit, so we pass the following order as under-

1. OP shall refund security deposit a sum of Rs 5000/- and Rs 1650/- for rest of three semester fee (II, III and IV) within 15 days of receiving of this order.
2. We also award a compensation of sum of Rs 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony for refusing to refund of refundable amount when legal notice was received by OP. This will include litigation charges also.
3. If order is not complied within stipulated time, entire awarded amount shall carry 9% interest till realized.  

The order copy be sent to the parties as per Act and file be consigned to the record room.

 

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