DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.287/2015

Mr. Sahi Sharma

S/o Sh. Manoj Sharma

R/o Plot No.352, 2^nd Floor,

Shakti Khand-IV, Indrapuram,

Ghaziabad                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       IIPM

          Bhati Mines Road,

          Chandan Haula,

          Satbari, Chhatarpur,

          New Delhi-110074

2.       Mr. Ayush Chandra

          Manager-Admissions

          IIPM

Bhati Mines Road,

          Chandan Haula,

          Satbari, Chhatarpur,

          New Delhi-110074

3.       Mr. Fahim Chaudhary

          Sr. Manager-Admissions

          IIPM

Bhati Mines Road,

          Chandan Haula,

          Satbari, Chhatarpur,

          New Delhi-110074                                      ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution        :09.10.15            Date of Order      : 30.10.18   

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Brief facts of the case in nutshell are:-

1. The complainant, Mr. Sahil Sharma took admission in the educational Insitute IIPM in a BBA Course for the session 2012-15 and paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in cash as payment for retention and payment for the said course. It is stated that the complainant  had opted for Noida Centre and later reiterated the same in his letter dated 20.06.12.
2. It is further stated that the complainant did not attend a single class as he was not admitted to the Nodia Centre, therefore he did not join any batch and no reporting was done by him in the IIPM Institute. Thereafter, the complainant sought refund of his money as the OP had failed to enroll him in the Nodia Centre. Various emails were exchanged between the parties. Finally the OP sent an email dated 25.10.12 assuring the complainant that his money would be refunded to him as soon as possible after the requisite documents were provided to the OP. The complainant immediately sent the requisite documents to the OP.
3. It is next averred that the complainant kept following up the OP he made various calls and wrote e-mails to the OP for the refund but no amount was refunded to the complainant. Due to the dilly dallying tactics and negligence of the OP, the complainant lost full one year and also suffered monetary loss. It is, thus, prayed that the OPs be directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant alongwith the litigation fees and the cost of the present complaint.
4. The complainant further states that though the complaint is within the prescribed period of limitation however, as a matter abundant caution, the complainant has filed a separate application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the complaint. In the said application it is stated that complainant got delayed in filing the present complaint as due to renovation and shifting to a new accommodation the complainant had misplaced his documents. Further the father of the complainant was not keeping good health. He had to be hospitalized and the complainant being only male member in the family besides his father had to take care of his ailing father therefore he did not get sufficient time to trace documents or to engage an Advocate to file the case. It is stated that the complainant could finally trace the documents on 01.10.15 during the whitewash at his residence and finally filed the present complaint on 09.10.15.

2. OP resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objections stating that the complainant has to be a consumer to file a consumer case in this Forum. In the present case a student of the institute cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ as imparting of education is not providing any service to potential users. Therefore, the ingredients and contents for invoking the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum are absent, the complaint cannot be entertained. OP has relied upon the judgment of P.T. Kashy and Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 613 (SC) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“In view of the judgment of this Court  in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(2) CPC 696 (SC), wherein this placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Education institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc., therefore cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

1. It is further averred that the present complaint is beyond the period of limitation and therefore is barred by limitation. After lot of self-praise OP has denied that no such letter dated 20.06.12 was given to the OP for the transfer of the study centre from Delhi to Noida and nothing was agreed between the parties regarding the same. OP further denied  that as per the provisional receipts and the selection letter  and also the reference ID the complainant was admitted for the Delhi Campus and no communication was made to anyone  in the OP’s office/staff for the Noida Centre. It is further denied that the complainant ever attended any classes and also did not report for the same. It is also denied by the OP that the complainant even sought refund of the fees through emails or any other mode of communication for the course
   from OP and the same was every assured by the staff of the OP institute.
2. Hence, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service nor there is any unfair trade practice on the part the OP therefore OP is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the complainant.

3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit filed by complainant reiterates the averment made by him in the complaint. The complainant supports his case by annexing copy of receipts of admission fee, copy of common application proforma, letter dated 20.06.12 regarding the transfer of the complainant  from Delhi centre to Noida centre and various emails exchanged between the parties.
4. Sh. Vishal Gupta working as Director, CVS with the OP filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the OPs.
5. Written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant.
6. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant. No one appeared on behalf of OP to advance oral arguments despite opportunity afforded in this regard.  We have perused the material available on record and gone through the file very carefully.
7. Undeniably complainant took admission in IIPM in a BBA Course for the session 2012-15 and paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in cash as fees vide receipt annexed as Annexure-A, Annexure-B and Annexure-C. It is stated that the complainant at the very outset informed that the complainant is willing to join OP’s institute only if he is enrolled in the Noida Centre. While filing up the form for the undergraduate course though there was no column for the Noida Centre the complainant did not tick mark any other centre but wrote ‘Noida’ in his own handwriting. Later the same fact was reiterated by him in his letter dated 20.06.12. Despite repeatedly asking for the Nodia Centre the complainant was not enrolled there, hence the complainant did not attend even a single class and he never reported to the OP’s institute.
8. Various emails were exchanged between the parties wherein the complainant sought refund but the OP always assured that the needful is being done by them. Finally on 25.10.12 the OP sent an email assuring him that he would get the refund.

Relevant portion of the mail dated 25.10.12 sent by employee of the OP to the complainant reads as under:

“you would be getting the refund amount DD on or before 10^th Dec, 2012. But to get the same done in the mentioned time frame I would require the originals of the Selection letter, letter receipts, acknowledgement and other originals what so ever you might have received from IIPM at the earliest kindly cooperate for the same so that the whole process can be completed  asap. Would really appreciate your quick response  and action on this.”

Needful was done by the complainant but to no avail.

9. The preliminary objection raised by the OP is that in the present case a student of the institute cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ as imparting of education is not providing any service to potential users. OP has relied on the judgment of Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(2) CPC 696 (SC), wherein it is held that education is not a commodity and Education institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
10. It is not the case of the complainant that the OP was deficient in imparting education. Complainant’s case is of stage prior to imparting education that is securing admission in a centre of his choice. Deficiency alleged in not giving him admission in his centre of choice and convenience. The judgment Maharishi Dayanand University (Supra) does not help the OP.
11. The next objection raised by the OP is that the present complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant filed an application for condonation of delay. On perusal of the application reasons for delay seem to be quite justifiable. Otherwise also there is delay of 9 months as till January, 2013 the complainant was writing e- mails seeking refund and the complaint was filed on 09.10.2015. Delay of 9 months has been well explained by the complainant as he misplaced the documents while shifting his residence and further his father was also hospitalized. Thereafter immediately on tracing the documents he filed the present complaint. The delay is thus condoned.  
12. OP averred that as per the provisional receipts, the selection letter and also the reference ID the complainant was admitted for the Delhi Campus. Nothing has been placed on record by OP to prove the same. Bald averment made by the party does not hold water in the eyes of law. It is further admitted by the OP that complainant did not attend regular classes in the institute. Hence, OP admits that despite paying admission fee to OP, the complainant did not attend any class in the institute. Further OP admits his liability to refund the fee in OP’s mail dated 25.10.2012 annexed as Annexure-D. However, OP did not admit the amount which he had agreed to refund. The question that arises before this Forum is the quantum of fee to be refunded.
13. The complainant faulted to the extent that despite having the knowledge that he was enrolled for the Delhi centre as per his letter dated 20.06.12 seeking transfer, the complainant still paid the remaining fee of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the provisional receipts dated 25.08.2012. The complainant blocked the seat for full one year by paying the full fee and taking admission despite knowing that he was admitted to the Delhi campus which was against what he had desired.
14. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to refund of Rs.25,000/- which was paid as retention fee. Further it is clearly mentioned in the provisional receipt that this is towards the cost of career counseling, preparation, admission and selection  process for securing seat in IIPM and is non-refundable irrespective of whether the student chooses to take admission in IIPM or not.
15. Based on the discussions above, this Forum is of the opinion that the OP is liable to the extent that it did not transfer the complainant from Delhi to the Nodia Centre. Hence OP is directed to refund the balance fee of Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant  for deficiency in service alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant  till realization within a period of two months from the date of receiving of copy of this order. Beyond that period OP shall become liable to pay Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment 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 30.10.18.