STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (FIRST APPEAL NO.314 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 06.09.2010 Date of Decision: 24.03.2011M/s FIIT JEE Limited, Registered Office at Vashist House, 29A, Kalu Sarai, Near Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi. ……Appellant/OP No.2. VersusSh. Manmeet Singh, aged about 17 years S/o Sh. P. P. Singh R/o 2663-A, Sector 70, MIG Super, SAS Nagar, Mohali through his father and natural guardian. ....Respondent/Complainant. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Roopesh Kanwar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the respondent. (FIRST APPEAL NO.379 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 14.10.2010 Date of Decision: 24.03.2011 Sh. Manmeet Singh, aged about 17 years S/o Sh. P. P. Singh R/o 2663-A, Sector 70, MIG Super, SAS Nagar, Mohali through his father and natural guardian. ……Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. M/s FIIT JEE Limited having its local office at S.C.O. No.321-22, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 2. M/s FIIT JEE Limited, Registered Office at Vashist House, 29A, Kalu Sarai, Near Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi ....Respondents/OPs. Argued by: Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Roopesh Kanwar, Advocate for the respondents. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. This order will dispose of two appeals under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) one bearing F.A. No.314 of 2010 filed by the OP No.2 - M/s FIIT JEE Limited and another F.A. No.379 of 2010 filed by the complainant Sh. Manmeet Singh against the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.1,000/- as administration charges as per UGC guidelines and proportionate fees from 27.4.2009 to 9.7.2009; Rs.24,000/- towards study material; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which OPs were made liable to pay the aforesaid amount except costs of litigation along with interest @18% per annum from 9.7.2009 till actual payment. 2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he approached OP No.1 i.e. FIIT JEE Limited for imparting coaching to his son in medical stream. On 25.2.2009, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.26,405/- to the OPs towards admission and tuition fee and subsequently Rs.12,000/- were paid vide cheque dated 25.3.2009 towards books and stationary items etc. It was averred that he also paid a further sum of Rs.10,700/- towards school fee on behalf of Mount Carmel School, Chandigarh to OP No.1. It was next averred that the complainant was given admission in the two years integrated school programme known as “Pinnacle IIT-JEE and School (integrated Preparation)”. As per the complainant, he deposited with the OPs a total sum of Rs.1,85,957/-. The case of the complainant was that being frustrated by the teaching imparted by the OP Institution, he requested OP No.1 to change the course from Pinnacle to Class Room weekend programme, which was initially agreed upon by OP No.1 but later on it refused to do so. Alleging this act of OPs as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint. 3. OPs in their reply, admitted the fact of giving admission to the complainant in Pinnacle two year integrated programme course, pleaded that the complainant got admission in Mount Carmel School, Sector 47, Chandigarh on the basis of admission in the Pinnacle Programme and deposited Rs.10,700/- with the said school as admission fee as he was still studying in that school. It was pleaded that the complainant had already received the study material worth Rs.24,000/-. It was specifically denied by the OPs that the coaching provided by them was not up to the mark or the complainant ever made any request for change of course. OPs also denied the receipt of any request from the complainant for the refund of the tuition fee. It was next pleaded that to ensure quality education, uniform teaching standard and keeping in mind the interests of the students, OPs do not fill the vacant seat against any student who leaves the course midway. OPs also referred to Clauses 6 and 7 of the declaration signed by the complainant as per which, fee once paid was non refundable. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as mentioned in the opening para of this order. The complainant as well as OP No.2 have challenged the impugned order through two separate appeals as mentioned above. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.2 has referred to Paras No.6 and 7 of the Declaration Form (Annexure OP-III) vide which the complainant agreed not to claim refund of the fee deposited by him if he left the institute for any reason whatsoever. The learned counsel also referred to Pars No.17 and 18 of Annexure OP-III and argued that this undertaking was given after reading and understanding the said clauses contained in the Declaration and Enrolment Form and was voluntarily given by him. He also referred to Para No.12 of Annexure OP-III and argued that the complainant had promised to abide by the rules and regulations, referred to above and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the fee as he left the institute midway. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the case of APEEJAY Institute of Management and Information Technology, I (2009) CPJ 10 (NC). 8. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the above mentioned authority is not applicable to the present case. According to him, the entire Declaration Form is unduly loaded in favour of the OP; the complainant who wanted to take admission had no option to change or request for change of the terms and conditions of the Declaration Form. His contention is that at that time, he was in fiduciary capacity and the OP No.2/appellant took undue advantage of his position as such and that obtaining such a declaration, which favoured only the OPs is an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 9. In the case Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2009 (3) CPC 187, there existed such a condition in the brochure issued by the petitioner from whose side, an argument was advanced that the fee was non refundable or non-transferable under any circumstances. His contention was not accepted by the learned District Forum which held that any clause saying that fees once paid will not be refunded is unconscionable and unfair and therefore not enforceable. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as National Commission). Again this question arose in the case Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma, 2011 CTJ 288 (CP) (NCDRC) where a complaint was opposed, interalia, on the ground that the fees paid were non refundable and the respondent was bound by its terms and conditions. Their contention was neither accepted by the learned District Forum nor by the State Commission. The revision petition filed by the Institute was also dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission. In the case GGS College of Modern Technology Vs. Mrs. Kusum Arora, 2011 CTJ 346 (CP) (SCDRC), Rule 8 of the prospectus of Appellant provided that no refund was admissible after the cut off date. However, in that case also, refund was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Commission. In another case Principal, S.D. College Vs. Reetika Manhas & Anr., IV (2008) CPJ 502, again such a question arose before this Commission wherein the appellant refused to refund the fee on the ground that she had given declaration that she would not claim refund in case she left the college. This contention was not accepted by the learned District Forum and the appeal filed by the Institution was dismissed. In view of these authorities, it becomes clear that mere declaration obtained by the Coaching Institute from the complainant that the fee deposited by him/her would not be refunded in any circumstances, is unconscionable and cannot be enforced against the complainant. 10. The contention of the complainant/respondent is that the OP recovered from him a sum of Rs.1,85,957/- for two years course. The Fee Plan, however, shows that the fees was to be recovered in eight installments. The conduct of the OP/appellant in collecting the fee in advance amounts to unfair trade practice. In the case Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (6) SCC 697, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an educational institution could only charge the prescribed fee for one semester/year and not for the entire course. On its basis, the Hon’ble National Commission in the case Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma (Supra) held as follows: - “…The principles laid down by the Apex Court would apply with equal force to the training institutes who collect fees in advance, though not due, in order to prepare the students for various examinations. Charging fees in advance beyond the current semester/year would certainly amount to unfair trade practice and the same cannot be countenanced…” In the case Atam Parkash Khattar Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009 decided on 21.7.2010 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was observed that educational institutions cannot be permitted to behave like a business establishment who work with profit motive. It was held that there was no justification on their part in retaining the substantial fee paid by a student who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said institution. In that case, fee was ordered to be refunded by the petitioner. In another case Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2009 (3) CPC 187, the Hon’ble National Commission (in Para No.7) held that it was unjust to collect the fees for the total period of the course. In another case Nipur Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, held that the institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee even after the student withdrew from their institute. . In the case FIIT JEE Limited Vs. Minathi Rath (Dr.), IV (2006) CPJ 255, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that charging lumpsum fee for the entire duration of two years in advance and that too for the period for which they were yet to provide service of education is highly unethical, unconscionable and unfair trade practice and this is an indirect way to earn large amount of money and to earn undue profit by exploiting poor students. It was further held that no service provider can charge fee/consideration for a period for which the service has yet to be provided; that by charging fee in lump-sum as in this case, such institute not only exploits the students community but also bind the students not to leave the institute whatever quality of education or training there may be. However, these directions do not appear to be having any effect on the OP/appellant and they are still charging fee in advance. This conduct of the OP/appellant, therefore, amounts to unfair trade practice. 11. In this respect, there have been cases filed by the consumers against the appellant in different courts. One Aditi Singh filed complaint No.170 of 2007 against the appellant, which was allowed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T., Chandigarh directing it to refund the amount after deducting one month charges out of the total amount deposited by the complainant of that case. The appellant filed appeal No.870 of 2007, which was dismissed in limine by this Commission vide order dated 16.1.2008. The appellant has not been able to produce any record to show if the said order was ever set aside. In the case FIIT JEE (Hyderabad Classes) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Binjrajka, II (2010) CPJ 45, the complainant had joined two years integrated course started by the petitioner and paid a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- for the said course. He left the course after three months and sought refund of the amount. The District Forum ordered the appellant to deduct Rs.32,000/- out of the aforesaid amount and to refund the balance amount. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, against which, the appellant filed Revision Petition No.1976 of 2010, which was decided by the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated 29.7.2010. In that case, the petitioner was directed to refund 50% of the amount taken by it for two years course since the complainant had left the course in the first year itself. In case FIIT JEE Limited Vs. Minathi Rath (Dr.) (Supra) also, the appellant was directed to refund the fee. These orders, therefore, show that fee recovered by the appellant is to be refunded on account of the complainant having left the course if they have not rendered service for which fee was taken by them. 12. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the contention of the complainant is that he being minor took admission but felt frustrated from the institution from the very beginning and was not satisfied with the quality of teaching being imparted. According to him, there was lack of personal attention due to which he requested the appellant/OP to change the course from Pinnacle to Class Room weekend programme, they agreed to do it but on the condition that the complainant would have to pay the fee as per Pinnacle programme due to which he had to leave the course and requested for the refund. The course had been started from 27.4.2009. There were vacations from 6.6.2009 to 23.6.2009 and the complainant had requested on 4.7.2009 vide email and again through a letter dated 9.7.2009 to refund the fee. The OPs, therefore, can charge fee from the complainant only up to 9.7.2009 and to refund the remaining amount. It is what the learned District Forum has ordered. 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned District Forum. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the OP/Appellant bearing FA No.314 of 2010 and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. 14. Since, no grounds are made out to enhance the compensation in appeal, the appeal filed by the complainant bearing FA No.379 of 2010 is dismissed. 15. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 24th March 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION (APPEAL NO.314 OF 2010) Argued by: Sh. Roopesh Kanwar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the respondent. Dated the 24th day of March, 2011. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by OP along with the appeal bearing F.A. No.379 of 2010 filed by the complainant have been dismissed. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) MEMBER PRESIDENT
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (FIRST APPEAL NO.379 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 14.10.2010 Date of Decision: 24.03.2011 Sh. Manmeet Singh, aged about 17 years S/o Sh. P. P. Singh R/o 2663-A, Sector 70, MIG Super, SAS Nagar, Mohali through his father and natural guardian. ……Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. M/s FIIT JEE Limited having its local office at S.C.O. No.321-22, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 2. M/s FIIT JEE Limited, Registered Office at Vashist House, 29A, Kalu Sarai, Near Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi ....Respondents/OPs. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Roopesh Kanwar, Advocate for the respondents. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.314 of 2010 titled ‘M/s FIIT JEE Limited Vs. Sh. Manmeet Singh’ vide which this appeal has been dismissed. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 24th March 2011. [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
