BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ashok Singh son of Sh. Gulbar Singh r/o 106/1, Bank Colony, Manimajra through his natural Guardian his father Gulbar Singh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

Indian Institute of Technology (IITT Jee), Corporate Office, IIIT Society, SCO No.914, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh through its M.D. Sanjay Sinha and Circle Head, Sh. Ashwani Dharia.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL            MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Rakesh Bhatia, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Dalip Kataria, Counsel for OP.

                 ---

DR.[MRS] MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that OP-institute is providing coaching for admission to various courses like AIEEE, JEE, AT-I and II exams. The complainant opted for panther (+1) for a period of 2 years for covering syllabus of XI, XII along with comprehensive guidance for engineering especially ITT/JEE ad SAT I-II and fill up the admission form and paid Rs.1000/- as registration fee.  After clearing the test conducted by OP, the complainant got admission in 2 years course after availing discount of Rs.10000/- out of Rs.62000/- on basis of his good performance.  The complainant deposited Rs.27000/- out of Rs.53000/- as tuition fee for the said course.  According to the complainant, OPs hired the services of temporary teachers to impart education. As per the prospectus, 4 batches of 96 students each batch 24 students each were to be formed by the institute but only about 20 students took admission for panther and for rest of the courses even a single admission was not there. It has been averred by the complainant that most of the faculty of the institute namely Sh. Kapil and Mr. Pardeep Mehra left the institute.  After few days, the new faculty joined the institute which did not match the experience as published in the newspaper. Thereafter on 02.08.2010, OP refused to accept the fee and decided to close the institute. The complainant along with other students approached OP but to no effect. To the utter dismay of the complainant, OP circulated the letter wherein he was informed that his name was going to be struck off from the institute due to non-payment of the fee. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       OP filed written statement and took some preliminary objections. On merits, all the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. It has been pleaded that courses were started on time and the best teachers available for imparting the study to students and that the regular teachers were working with the OP. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.       Admittedly, the Complainant joined OP-Institute by opting for Panther (+1) course for a period of two years for covering syllabus of XI, XII, along with comprehensive guidance for Engineering, especially ITT/JEE and SAT I-II. The total fee for the course was Rs.53,000/-, out of which Rs.27,000/- [Rs.1000/- as registration fee + Rs.26,000/- as tuition fee] was deposited with the OP on 9.4.2010 and 18.4.2010 against receipt voucher Annexure C-2 and C-3. 

6.       It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that at the relevant time, it was informed by the OP that it would provide outstanding faculty, as well as best study material, with a multi-media support based system, but no such facility was ever provided. Even, the classes were not started, as per the schedule. Further, the OP failed to cover the full syllabus for want of regular faculty, as for imparting coaching, it had hired temporary teachers for taking classes. It was only due to deficient and poor academic infrastructure provided by the OP, half of the students, who were enrolled in the said course, left the same, in between. It is contended that the remaining students, including the Complainant remained in the Institution, with the fervent hope that the OP may provide permanent teachers, as promised, but to their dismay, the OP declared to shut down the course, thereby spoiling the precious time, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

7.       On the contrary, the OP refuted all the allegations, stating that the course was started on time and regular teachers were working, who were striving to give their best for success in competitive exams. It was submitted that Complainant did not deposit the tuition fee & stopped coming to the Institute of his own, therefore, the OP cannot be held negligent in providing service, as the Complainant could not complete the course due to his own fault.  

8.       There is no dispute about it that the Complainant joined the course in question, in order to get coaching for competitive entrance examination, in the OP Institute, on the assurance of providing best service by the OP, which they did not provide at all. Since OP has miserably failed to produce and prove any cogent and convincing evidence in support of their contention that they did fairly well in providing the promised services to the Complainant.

9.       Being dissatisfied with the services rendered by the OP, the father of the Complainant wrote a letter dated 4.8.2010(C-5), stating therein that the decision of the OP to close the institute, in between, after receiving a sum of Rs.27,000/-, would not only left them in lurch, but also spoil the precious one year of his son. A request was, therefore, made to refund the fee deposited. But there was no justification at all from the side of OP. However, with a view to shield their lapse and negligence, OP wrote a letter dated 7.8.2010, stating as under:-

“We regret to inform you that inspite of our repeated reminders and display of extended last cut off date on the notice board for deposit of fee by 30^th July. You have not deposited the fee for the next sessions which was in fact supposed to be deposited by first week of July. You are, therefore, not entitled to pursue the next session.”

The aforesaid letter is nothing, but a ploy of the OP to cover up lapse on their part, as the OP has miserably failed to place on record a copy of alleged reminders or notice displayed on the notice board, purportedly, sent by it to the Complainant, or displayed on the notice board, to substantiate their plea. The contention of the Complainant is that due to the callous attitude of the OP, he suffered mental and physical harassment. He and his father had been visiting and writing to the OP to refund the fee paid by him, but the OPs did not bother and have rather thrust this litigation on the Complainant.

10.      The closing of the class without any intimation to the students itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  OP-Institute has also failed to render the promised services to the complainant due its own difficulties, for which the complainant cannot be blamed. In these circumstances, the complaint deserves success and the complainant is held entitled for the refund of fee of Rs.27,000/-.

11.      In view of the foregoing findings, this compliant is allowed with a direction to OP to refund the deposited fee of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant, along with costs of litigation quantified at Rs.2500/-. 

12.      This order be complied with by OP, within one month, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund the aforesaid amount to the complainant, along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.08.2010, till its realization.

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.