DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.651/12
Mr. Seeraj S
S/o Mr. C. Sreekumar
R/o B-504, PO IFFCO Township
Bareilly-243403
Uttar Pradesh.
Mr. C. Sreekumar
R/o B-504, PO IFFCO Township
Bareilly-243403
Uttar Pradesh. .…Complainants
VERSUS
M/s FIIT JEE LIMITED
Through its Managing Director
FIIT JEE House
29A, Kalu Sarai
Sarvapriya Vihar
New Delhi-110016. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:05.12.2012
Date of Order :20.05.2023
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainants have requested to pass an award directing M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to refund an amount of Rs.1,57,148/- which was deposited by complainant towards fee of the entire period of two years programme along with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization; (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.; (iii) to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant No.1 is minor and complainant No.2 is father and natural guardian of the complainant No.1 so he is competent to sign, verify and file etc. the present complainant on behalf of both the complainants. The complainant No.1 was enrolled on 15.03.2012 with OP in two years programme for IIT JEE known as regular week contact classes. Complainant NO. 2 was asked to remit an amount of Rs.1,57,148/-. The whole amount was got deposited despite the inability to pay the whole amount in one go by complainant No.2.
On 10.04.2012, the complainant No.2 informed the OP that due to some unavoidable reason, his son would not be able to attend classes from 13.04.2012 and may be allowed to join batch commencing from July 2012. The OP did not respond to his request when they contacted in June 2012, OP refused to accede to the request of complainants. Complainant No.1 could not attend the classes in April Batch. It was too late for him to join the April batch after two months. Since he was not allowed to attend the fresh batch, he had no other option but to quit the prog.
Under these circumstances, the complainant No.2 on 09.06.2012 made a written request to OP to refund his hard earned money. He again reminded OP vide letter dated 19.06.2012. OP vide, letter dated 27.06.2012 referring its policy, refused to refund the amount of fee paid by the complainant. It is contended by complainant that the OP had filled in all seats of the batch commencing from 13.04.2012, thereby got unjust enrichment by refusing the refund to complainants. On the other hand, OP was not at loss by filling the seat of complainant with another student. The complainant got the legal notice dated 27.07.2012 served on OP. It was argued by complainants that the conduct of OP constituted unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections. The OP alleged that complainants had failed to show any deficiency on the part of OP. The complainant No.1 voluntarily withdrew from the course. The OP further contended that the reason for leaving the prog was advanced as weather of Delhi did not suit the complainant No.1 and resultantly, fell ill. It was contended that the complainants had accorded their unconditional consent for non-refund of fees and are thus bound by them. A copy of Enrolment Form is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure OP-1. The complainant could not show non-performance of the terms and conditions of the contract on the part of the OP. The complainant agreed and accepted the Arbitration Clause forming part of Declaration attached with Enrolment Form. Hence, the complaint is barred by Arbitration Agreement. The OP also attached importance to the para 6, 7, 24 & 19 of the declaration of Enrolment Form. OP believes in quality education not quantity. To ensure quality, the OP take those students who qualify the admission test. Faculty members of FIIT JEE are recruited through one of most strict selection process on the other hand. It was also stated that OP is self-financed and self-managed Institute and run from the fees collected from the students.
It is also mentioned that the complainant deposited the fee in two instalments - one on 13.04.2012 and other after the commencement of classes on 24.04.2012. The said fact is evident from the fee receipt and annexed as Annexure OP-II. It was held by OP that OP at every stage tried to help the complainant and extended its hand to redress his cause.
In view of the above narrations, OP requested to dismiss the complaint.
Both the parties have filed written submission and evidence in affidavit. Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the entire materials placed on record. Due consideration was given to the arguments. It is noticed that the grievances of the complainant for seeking refunds of the fee whereas she had not attended even any class of the contact programme. Since the OP was informed about her inability to join classes in advance from the assigned batch commencing from 13.04.2012. The complainants held that the seat which fell vacant due to her not joining the batch, might have been filled up by allowing one more aspirant. Thus, the OP has earned unjust enrichment by allowing one aspirant in her place. As such, OP did not lose any income/fees. To which, OP denied the allegations in his written statement. The objection of OP in respect of Arbitration does not sustain in view of the specific provision available in the C.P. Act.
The complainants have placed reliance on the following judgments to support their claims.
- Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 3 and
- Atul Trivedi Vs. Managing Director FIITJEE in consume complaint case No.27/06-involving the similar set of facts, held that OP (FIITJEE) guilty of deficiency of service.
On the other hand, the OP has also referred the following judgments to support its case:-
- PT Koshy & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. where the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that Education Institute are not providing any service.
- Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier AIR 1996 SC 25081996 (5) Scale 142 Cohere it was held that the courts (District Forum/State Commission (National Commission) can’t go behind the terms of contract entered between the parties. Therefore, the parties are bound by the terms in contract.
Furthermore, it is held that Courts are to interpr the words as expressed by parties as held in Polymat India (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2005) 9 SCC 174.
- Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to strike down a condition howsoever it may appear unreasonable as held in T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. by National Commission 2003 (2) CPJ 176, 2004 (II) CCC 336.
- Bhandari Construction Co. Vs. Narayan Gopal Upadhaye AIR 2007 SC 1441 – when the terms of transactions are reduced in writing, it is impossible to lead evidence to contradict its terms in view of Section 91 of Evidence Act.
The OP further contended that the complainant is not entitled for any refund when complainant voluntarily left the classes midstream as held, by Hon’ble National Commission in the following cases:-
- FIITJEE Vs. Mrs. Minathi Rath RPNo. 3365/2006
- Brilliant classes Vs. Ashbel Sam RP No.2700/2006
- Apee Jay Institute of Management & Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok 1(2009) CPJ 10 (NC)
- Bhoja Dental College & Hospital & Ors. Vs. Amandeep Singh 11 (2009) CPJ 336.
And many more judgment of Hon’ble National Commission referred to by the counsel for OP, have been considered.
It would be seen from the above that the complainant No.1 had in advance given intimation before commencement of batch on 13.04.2012 to this effect that he may be allowed to join the classes in the next Batch commencing from July, 2012. When he contacted in June, 2012 his request was not acceded to and no decision on his intimation/request was taken till June. As such, two months had already elapsed, therefore he had no choice but to seek refund. If the complainant’s complaint is not allowed, it shall be against the very tenets of natural justice. As the complainants have clearly established that despite prior intimation, the complainant No.1 interested in joining next batch, was not permitted. It is also true that some amount might have been incurred on administrative function by OP. Therefore, some percentage of amount should be allowed to be kept for OP for such administrative charges.
In the facts and circumstances and discussion held above, this Commission is of considered view that OP is deficient in service and further directed to refund the 80% of the amount deposited i.e. Rs.1,58,148/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum within two months from the receipt of this order failing which interest shall be levied @ 8% per annum till its realization. Additionally Rs.10,000/- is also allowed as compensation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
