IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL MEMBER
F.A.NO.316/2017
(Against order in CC.NO.116/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF APRIL 2022
1. The Senior Manager
FITJEE Ltd., Suguna PIP School
Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti Road
Coimbatore – 641 014
2. The Regional Manager
FITJEE Ltd., FITJEE Towers M/s. A. Palaniappan
No.3, 1st Lane, Nungambakkam Counsel for
Chennai – 600 034 Appellants / Opposite parties
Vs.
M. Rahamathullah
29/56, PGR Lane M/s. S. Kumaradevan
Big Bazaar Street Counsel for
Tirupur – 641 604 Respondent/ Complainant
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.28.11.2016 in CC. No.116/2015.
This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant admitted his son in the coaching classes conducted by the appellants/ opposite parties. He has admitted his son while he was studying in IX standard, and the course will be continued till he completes his XII standard. The fees for the four terms / four years have been collected in advance. Due to unavoidable circumstances, complainant could not make his son to continue the course. Hence he quit the course after second term, and opted for refund of the fees for the balance two terms. Since the opposite parties have not considered his request, he filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for refund of the third and fourth terms fees alongwith compensation of Rs.20000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.
3. The Appellants/ opposite parties, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, directing the appellants/opposite parties to refund the fees @ Rs.183798/- alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.2500/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted that non-refund of fees under the clause of Enrolment Form was duly accepted by the complainant, therefore it cannot be termed as deficiency in service. According to the written agreement, the complainant is not entitled for any refund in case of leaving the course in between. But the District Commission had awarded for refund of fees alongwith compensation. The appellants came to know about the case only after the receipt of the order copy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus praying for an opportunity to prove their case on merit. The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton. If an opportunity is provided, the opposite parties have a fair chance of succeeding the case. Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.
5. The Respondent /complainant though entered appearance through counsel before this commission failed to appear on the date of final hearing. Hence we have heard the appellants and passed the order.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that as per the agreement, the complainant agreed for the terms of the opposite parties, that the fees will not be refunded in case of discontinuing the course. But in the absence of reply version and documents in support of the contentions of the opposite parties about the facts, the contentions cannot be accepted. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit. Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties in not responding to the notice of the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.31.3.2022 we have directed the appellants/opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the legal aid account of the State Commission, by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Registrar, State Commission, on or before 18.4.2022, which was complied with. Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission in C.C.No.116/2015 dt.28.11.2016, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Coimbatore, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.
Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Coimbatore on 19.5.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite parties shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.
The amount deposited, by the appellants, shall abide the result of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.
R. VENKATESAPERUMAL R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
+
