Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/55/2019

Tmt Tharani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s FIIT JEEE - Opp.Party(s)

M/s A Govindaraj

30 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 19.02.2019

                                                                    Date of Order               : 30.10.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.55/2019

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

Tmt. Tharani,

W/o. Mr. Pakeer,

No.1782, 4^th Main Road,

TNHB Colony,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                         .. Complainant.                                                    

..Versus..

 

1. M/s. FIITFEE LIMITED,

Rep. by its Director, Chennai Region,

Having Regional Head Office at:

No.3, 1^st Lane, Nungambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. Mr. Ankur Jain,

Director, Chennai Region,

M/s. FIITJEE LIMITED,

 Regional Head Office,

No.3, 1^st Lane, Nungambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

3. Mr. Rajni,

Authorized Signatory / Head of the Centre,

M/s. FIITJEE LIMITED,

(K.K. Nagar Branch),

No.3, FIITJEE Tower,

Dr. Ramasamy Salai,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 078.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant  :  M/s. A. Govindaraj & another

Opposite parties 1 to 3           :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the remaining course fee of Rs.1,82,372/- reckoning from January 2019 to March 2020, out of Rs.3,64,730/- paid by her for her son the Three Year Classroom Program for IIT-JEE Weekend Contact Classes, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service for unfair trade practice in conducting coaching classes to her son for the Three Year Classroom Program for IIT-JEE Weekend contact classes and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she admitted her son P. Pranav Keerthan, (Enrolment No.1062691700022 Batch Code- KKTYW80A01) with the 3^rd opposite party’s centre under the Three Year Classroom program for IIT-JEE Weekend contact classes  by paying a sum of Rs.3,64,730/- together with GST charges of Rs.13,500/- in total of Rs.3,78,230/-.  While her son was studying in XI Standard at Britto Academy, Velachery, Chennai, she admitted her son in the opposite parties’ institution with a hope that he will perform competitive exams conducted by IIT, Chennai or any other reputed Engineering College after completion of his schooling.  But after admitting her son, she came to know that there were only minimum teaching staffs deployed for conducting coaching program and none of them are from IIT.  

2.     The complainant submits that she admitted her son in the 3^rd opposite party’s coaching centre on 14.04.2017 and she came to understand through her son and other students that the teaching staff are not teaching the students properly.   They are unable to clarify the students doubts when they asked with them.   Her son was unable to understand the subject.  The complainant submits that the opposite parties’ institution was not properly functioning and separate charges were collected every time for  repairing the TAB.   Her son was unable to continue the syllabus due to malfunction of the TAB provided by the opposite parties’ institution.  Her son complained to her several times that he was unable to concentrate in his studies due to lack of equipped classroom.   The complainant submits that due to the above said allegations her son was not interested to continue the course in the opposite parties’ institution.   The complainant submits that she made diligent enquiry with the opposite parties on the complaints made by her son. The complainant submits that it is also learnt that many students have discontinued the course due to the aforesaid reasons.   Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice dated:24.01.2019 to the opposite parties.  But after receipt of legal notice, the opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to comply her demand.   The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.     After receipt of notice, Mr. A. Palaniappan, Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 filed memo undertakes to file Vakalath but failed to file Vakalath and Written Version and hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 were set ex-parte.

4.     Though the opposite parties 1 to 3 remained Ex-parte, this Forum is to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this Forum. 

5.     In such circumstances, in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the remaining course fees of Rs.1,82,372/- reckoning from January 2019 to March 2020, out of Rs.3,64,730/- paid by her for the Three Year Classroom program for IIT-JEE-Weekend contact classes with the opposite parties for her son as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice in conducting coaching classes to her son for the Three Year Classroom programme for IIT-JEE weekend contact classes and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as prayed for with cost?

 

7.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 to 3 after receipt of notice entered appearance through Advocate Mr. A. Palaniappan and has not filed Vakalath and written version before this Forum and remained ex-parte.  The complainant has filed his proof affidavit and written argument.   In view of the endorsement made by the complainant’s Counsel, no oral argument advanced on the side of the complainant.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, proof affidavit and documents of the complainant.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she admitted her son P. Pranav Keerthan, (Enrolment No.1062691700022 Batch Code- KKTYW80A01) with the 3^rd opposite party’s centre under Three Year Classroom program for IIT-JEE Weekend contact classes  by paying a sum of Rs.3,64,730/- together with GST charges of Rs.13,500/- in total of Rs.3,78,230/-.  While her son was studying in XI Standard at Britto Academy, Velachery, Chennai as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, she admitted her son in the opposite parties’ institution with a hope that he will perform competitive exams conducted by IIT, Chennai or any other reputed Engineering College after completion of his schooling.  But after admitting her son, she came to know that there were only minimum teaching staffs deployed for conducting coaching program and none of them are from IIT amounts to deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the complainant is that she admitted her son in the 3^rd opposite party’s coaching centre on 14.04.2017 and she came to understand through her son and other students that the teaching staff are not teaching the students properly.   They are unable to clarify the students doubts when they asked with them.   Her son was unable to understand the subject. 

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties’ institution was not properly functioning and separate charges were collected every time for repairing the TAB.   Her son was unable to continue the syllabus due to malfunction of the TAB provided by the opposite parties’ institution amounts to deficiency in service.  Her son complained to her several times that he was unable to concentrate in his studies due to lack of equipped classroom.  But the complainant has not produced an iota of evidence to prove the above allegations against the opposite parties.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the above said allegations her son was not interested to continue the course in the opposite parties’ institution.   Further the contention of the complainant is that she made diligent enquiry with the opposite parties on the complaints made by her son.   But the opposite parties’ institutions are not find any solution to solve the students problem as per Ex.A4(S).  Further the contention  of the complainant is that it is also learnt that many students have discontinued the course due to the aforesaid reasons.   Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice dated:24.01.2019 as per Ex.A5 to the opposite parties and called upon them jointly and severally to refund the remaining course fee of Rs.1,82,372/- reckoning from January 2019 to March 2020, out of Rs.3,64,730/- paid by her besides claiming Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for not conducting the Three Year coaching class for her son and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony.  But after receipt of legal notice, the opposite parties failed to comply her demand.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 has not come forward to file written version within the stipulated time and set ex-parte. 

9.     The Forum relied on the judgement/ Order cited below:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

FAO 490/2011

Between

FIITJEE LTD.

-Versus-

DN KOCHHAR

Held that

          “Fees refund: Should students sue education institutes and can they do so? Yes!

Law is on the side of students who want to leave an institute or course midway and are seeking refund of fees.   This also means, education institutes should not be charging upfront fees for the entire course and refuse refund, in case the student wants it.

Consider a typical scenario: A student takes admission to a coaching institute for a two year course, broken into four semesters.   The student signs the enrolment / admission form containing various conditions.   The institute collects upfront fees for the entire course.   After attending classes for a few days/weeks, the student is dissatisfied and wants to opt out, but the institute refuses to refund the fees.  It cites a clause in the admissions form that says, “Fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances”.

When the student persists with the demand, the institute cites another clause in the form:  “In case of any dispute, matter shall be referred to arbitration and institute shall appoint the Arbitrator.  The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties”.

What is the solution? Here are two real life resolutions.

In one case, Mr. Minathi Rath, a student’s father, dragged the coaching institute to the Consumer Forum.   The State Commission held in 2006, that the clause “fees once paid is not refundable” was unconscionable and voidable”.   It further directed all educational institutes not to charge fees for the whole duration of the course in advance by way of lumpsum payment.   In another case, a student paid an upfront fee of Rs.1.8 lakh for a two-year coaching programme for the IIT-JEE entrance test.  After a few classes, he wanted to opt out and sought a refund.  As expected, FIIT-JEE (the coaching institute) refused, citing the non-refund clause which he had signed.

When the student’s father persisted with the request to refund the fee (after deducting a portion for the duration he attended the classes) FIIT-JEE initiated arbitration proceedings.   The Arbitrator declined to grant the refund and agreed with FIIT-JEE’s submission that once the student signed the admission form, he was bound by its clauses.

I entered the scene after the arbitration proceedings and filed an objection in the District Court against the order of the Arbitrator.   The District Judge reversed the order of the Arbitrator with detailed reasons.   The judge specifically noted that when a student signs the admission form, he has no bargaining power to negotiate, or refuse to sign any particular clause in the admission form.  Hence, these clauses should not be held against the student.  The District Judge also directed Arbitrator to refund the proportionate fee to the student.

The matter did not end there.  FIIT-JEE hired a big law firm and challenged the order in the High court, although the amount involved was only Rs.2 Lakh.   The matter came up before the High Court on 21 November 2011.

At the hearing, FIIT-JEE conceded that the non-refundable fee clause can be challenged as unconscionable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, besides being in violation of the principles of public policy.   The High Court agreed with the District Judge’s view and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for a decision after taking into account all the recent precedents on the point of law.  The order is available here.  Settled the fee issue in the case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 696.  The Apex Court had expressed unhappiness with educational institutes charging the entire fees upfront and had said that students should only be asked to pay fees for a semester/year to begin with.

But FIIT-JEE argued before the NCDRC that the ruling of Islamic Academy was not applicable to it since it is not an educational institute but only a coaching institute.   The NCDRC was not impressed and upheld the order of the State Commission, directing FIIT-JEE to refund the fees.  The order is available here.

We now began a second round of arbitration in the second FIIT-JEE case as directed by the High Court, by providing all the rulings on the dispute.   This time the Arbitrator awarded the refund of fees for one year after deduction of statutory fees like Service Tax, etc.

In situations like these, students who want to leave an institute or course mid-way, usually hesitate to appoint a lawyer to argue their case.  On the other hand, institutes have the resources for good legal representation.  My advice to students is that the law is on your side if you want to fight.  And educational institutes should be prudent, desist from charge upfront fees for the entire course, and if they do, should not refuse a refund.

(Dushyant K Mahant, is Founding Partner of Mahant & Mahant and Intellectual Property Lawyer.  He did his Masters in IP Law from Brisbane.  Does pro bone work as well.  Mr. Mahant is active on social media to exchange views and news about politics, law and common sense).

10.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall refund the remaining course fees of Rs.1,82,372/- reckoning from January 2019 to March 2020, out of Rs.3,64,730/- paid by her for the Three Year Classroom programme for IIT-JEE weekend contact classes with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of presentation of complaint to till the date of this order and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to refund the remaining course fee of Rs.1,82,372/- reckoning from January 2019 to March 2020 out of Rs.3,64,730/- paid by her for the Three Year classroom program for IIT-JEE weekend contact classes with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of this complaint (i.e.) 19.02.2019 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 30.10.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

The above said amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	14.04.2017	Copy of Enrolment Report of the complainant’s son P. Pranav Keerthan
Ex.A2		Copy of acknowledgement for GST charges
Ex.A3		Copy of student ID card issued to the complainant’s son P. Pranav Keerthan
Ex.A4	06.01.2019 to  08.01.2019	Copy of email communication between the complainant and the opposite parties
Ex.A5	24.01.2019	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties with acknowledgement cards

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT