DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

=================

Sukhmanjot Singh Punia s/o Sh. Kamaljit Singh Punia r/o Village Parijala, District Patiala, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.            M/s Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training (A unit of Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd.) having its registered office at 721, Suneja Tower-II, Janakpuri, District Centre, New Delhi-110058 through its Chairman/Managing Director

2.            M/s Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training (A unit of Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd.) having its branch Office at SCO No.118-120, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA           PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

                   Sh. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU           MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Ajay Kumar Sawhney, Accounts Officer of the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took admission in the diploma course i.e. Frankfinn Diploma in Aviation, Hospitality and Travel Management (FDAHTM).  The said course was for 12 months and he paid Rs.37,079/- (C-2) as installment of the total fees.  The representative of the opposite parties assured of 90% placement assistance on completion of the said course.  It has been averred that the said course was to commence in July 2012.  However, a week after his registration, the complainant came to know that the opposite parties are taking no steps for his placement.  It has further been averred by the complainant that as he was suffering from motion sickness, he was advised (C-3) by the doctor to avoid vehicular travel.  Accordingly, the complainant asked the opposite parties to refund fee of Rs.37,079/-.   He also served a legal notice on the opposite parties, but to no avail.  It has been pleaded that even the seat vacated by him has been filled, but still the opposite parties failed to refund the amount.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                      In their joint written reply the opposite parties have not disputed that the complainant took admission in the course run by them and deposited total sum of Rs.37,079/-.  However, it has been denied that any assurance pertaining to the job guarantee of any type, after completion of the course, was given by them.  It has been averred that the opposite parties only provide placement assistance, which is optional, and can be availed only after completion of the course against payment of additional fees.  It has further been averred that even the health certificate submitted by the complainant is improper as the same was not issued by any recognized government hospital/institute.  It has been pleaded that the fee once paid was not refundable.  According to the opposite parties, they only provide short term vocational courses and the act of abandoning/leaving/discontinuing of the course by the complainant caused loss to them. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

4.                      We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Accounts Officer of the Opposite Parties and have perused the record.

5.                      In the instant complaint, the Complainant had applied for a Diploma Course in Aviation Hospitality and Travel Management with a course duration of twelve months having initially paid Rs.5000/- as registration fees and another Rs.28000/- as part payment on account of course fee along with the service tax quotient totaling to Rs.37079/-.  The Complainant thereafter claims that he did not attend the said course even for a day as he chanced upon a diagnosis by his doctor, which revealed, that he has a motion sickness and he would not be able to pursue his career after completion of the said course with the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has also stated that on one his visits, to the Opposite Parties, he came to know that the Opposite Parties will not be able to secure placement after completion of the said course. Hence, without wasting much time, he, immediately, applied for refund for the amount deposited with the Opposite Parties.

6.                      At the same time, the Opposite Parties while denying any deficiency in service on their part, have claimed that the Complainant is not entitled for any such refund, as at the very beginning of his admission, in the aforesaid course with the Opposite Parties, it was made clear that the fee once paid, whether in full or in parts, will not be refunded, under any circumstances.  The Opposite Parties have also claimed that the Complainant being aware of these terms and conditions has moved the present complaint against them on frivolous grounds, and is not entitled to any such refund, nor any compensation on account of deficiency in service on their part.

7.                      It is noticed that the Complainant had made a representation to the Opposite Parties citing his medical condition which was an impediment in his securing a job after completion of the said course with the Opposite Parties. A legal notice too was served upon the Opposite Parties which was not replied by them. Hence, the Complainant has genuinely registered his grievance with the Opposite Parties which was not heeded by them. As such, the present complaint is a genuine effort to seek redressal of such grievance.

8.                      Though the Opposite Parties while filing their version/ reply to the present complaint have claimed that the contents of the brochure are self-evident with regard to the non-refund of any fee paid by the Complainant, but having printed such condition in their prospects does not imply that the same has been admitted by the Complainant, as we did not find any signatures of the Complainant with regard to his acceptance of these terms and conditions.  Hence, the same cannot be held to be binding on him.

9.                      It is settled principle of law that any student who has not attended the course even for a date can seek the refund of the fee deposited by him and pursue his academics at any other institution, if he so desires.  No such institute can withhold the fee deposited by any such student as the same would amount to an infringement of his personal liberties.  It is also important to quote that our own State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Abhimanu Visions (E) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ms. Vinayshree, 2012(1) CPC 543 has held that the Complainant having attended the classes but had to leave the institute for unavoidable circumstances, denial of refund of fee for the unattended period of course, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. However, in the instant complaint, the Complainant had not attended the course, even for a single day, hence, in the ratio of the judgment cited above, he is entitled to full refund of the fee paid by him. Furthermore, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Sandeep Pal Singh Vs. Punjab Agricultural University & Ors., 2012 (1) CPC 45, has held that the Complainant having got admitted to the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science sought refund of fee, which was denied. Upholding the orders of the District Fora, Hon’ble National Commission has held that the institution could only deduct one month’s charges and as it had failed to prove that the vacancy created on account of the Complainant having left the course, remained unfilled, the Opposite Party was bound to refund the fee.  Even in the instant complaint, though the Opposite Parties have claimed that the seat vacated by the Complainant remained un-filled, for the entire course duration, but at the same time, no such evidence, was adduced, in support of its version. In the absence of cogent, convincing, reliable and trust worthy evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties to prove their innocence, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint, on account of deficiency in service on their part for not having refunded the fee to the Complainant minus the service tax quotient which the Opposite Parties after having collected from the Complainant may have deposited with the concerned authorities.           

10.                   In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to:-

[a]         To refund the fee of Rs.33,000/-  (Rs.28,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) to the Complainant;

[b]         To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[C]        To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

11.                   The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 10 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

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

Announced

23/04/2013

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER