Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

221/2014

N.Venkatesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.FIIT JEE Ltd., rep by its Founder chairman & Chiefmentor Mr.D.K.Goel, - Opp.Party(s)

Sathish Parasaran

10 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                                    Complaint presented on :21.11.2014

                                                                                               Date of disposal : 10.02.2022

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.        : PRESIDENT

THIRU: S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.           : MEMBER

 

C.C. NO.221/2014

 

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

Mr.N.Venkatesan,

No.11, Porur Somasundaram Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                             ……Complainant.  

 

..Vs..

 

 

1.M/s.FIIT JEE Ltd.,

Rep. by its Founder Chairman & Chief Mentor,

Mr.D.K.Goel, FITJEE House, 29-A,

Kalu Sarai, Savapriya Vihar,

New Delhi – 110 016.  

 

2.M/s.   FIIT JEE Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Head,

175, Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                  :  M/s.Sathish Parasaran,

     R.Parathasarathy  and another                                                            

 

Counsel for the opposite parties            : Mr. A.Palaniappan

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund a sum of Rs.81,018/- towards tuition fees and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for deficiency in services with cost of proceedings.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant aggrieved by the gross deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice indulged in by the opposite parties in wrongfully  retaining the cheques collected from the complainant in advance.  The opposite party is a private Limited Company, which runs private coaching classes for training the students  to prepare them for IIT common entrance tests and other entrance tests. The complainant’s son V.Navneeth had enrolled in the 3 year classroom programme at the 2^nd opposite party Institution on January 23, 2013 and his enrollment No. is 1061611360019  and registration No.1061046112312120010. At the time of admission, the 2^nd opposite party had secured from the complainant the full course fee of Rs.2,91,109/- by way of demand drafts and post dated cheques. The complainant son attended regular classes from January, 2013 to July, 2014, but found no benefit at all from the teaching pattern of 2^nd opposite party institution because of apathy, lack of communication between teachers and students, lack of personal attention, classes being conducted  without any opportunity for students to have their doubts clarified, poor environment and lack of proper infrastructure and class room facilities and therefore, the complainant decided to withdraw his son from the 2^nd opposite party institution. Accordingly, the complainant withdrew his ward from the opposite parties institution and requested the opposite parties to return the advance fee as well as the post-dated cheques for the period post-termination, i.e from September, 2014 to July 2015 amounting to Rs.81,018/-. Despite several follow ups and the remainders by the complainant, the opposite parties  failed to return of the  fees/cheques which were collected by the opposite parties in advance. The complainant has demanded refund of the said amount which he has paid in advance, through a letter dated 09.09.2014, but the opposite parties had chosen to ignore it with a clear intention to unjustly enrich themselves  at the cost of the complainant. The complainant had requested for the return of all the post  dated cheques (PDCs) for the period after September 9, 2014 which the 2^nd opposite party have collected from him in advance. Thereafter, the complainant, through his counsel sent a legal notice dated 01.10.2014 to the opposite parties, wherein he demanded return of the cheques which he had deposited with the opposite parties for future fee, which has also remained unanswered. Hence this complaint.

02.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of imparting  quality education to the students aspiring to get admission in various IITs of the country.  The present complaint is not maintainable in view of the recent observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in case titled as P.T.Koshy Vs Ellen Charitable Trust, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational Instructions are not providing any kind of service.  The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in providing services by the opposite parties. The complainant had given his consent and entered in to an agreement of taking services of opposite parties and as such the terms and condition of the said agreement are binding upon him. As per terms and conditions of the enrolment form fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances and they would  have to give an undertaking to that effect. The complainant and his son, after going through all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the enrolment form and information given, had given their consent and signed the declaration/undertaking appended there in.  The complaint had entered in to an agreement with the opposite parties for hiring the services of the opposite parties and as per terms of agreement, the complainant has given an undertaking to not to claim the refund of fees under any circumstances and rather would pay the entire course fee i.e. the PDCs amount and as such the complainant is under an obligation to pay the remaining balance fees to the opposite parties.  The son of complainant appeared in the FIRE Examination vide  registration No.1061046112312120010 conducted by the opposite party on 23.12.2012 and on the basis of rank obtained in the said FIRE, opposite party institute enrolled the complainant in the course program for 3-year classroom program for IIT-JEE regular weekend contact classes vide enrolment number 1061611360019 on 23.01.2013. That complainant duly filed the Enrolment Form along with all its annexure and after understanding all the terms and conditions of enrolment form duly signed the same. The total course fees for three year course including service tax and cost of books and study material was Rs.2,91,110/-. However, the actual fee received by the opposite party is only Rs.2,10,091/- and remaining course fee Rs.81,018/- is still outstanding and opposite party reserves its right to claim the same as per law. From a bare perusal of these declarations and the consent accorded thereto, by the complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant is not entitled for any refund and the present complaint has been filed with utmost dishonest and malafide intentions. Hence, the same is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

03. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the opposite parties liable to refund a sum of Rs.81,018/- towards tuition fees paid in advance to the complainant?
3.  Whether the complainant is entitled  for compensation and cost?
4. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled?

04. POINT NO. 1 TO 3

          The complainant  enrolled his son Navneeth  in three year class room program for IIT JEE regular weekend  contract classes of opposite parties on 21.01.2013.  The 1^st opposite party is a limited company incorporated under the Provision of Companies Act 1956 and  is engaged in the business of imparting quality education to the student aspiring to get admission in various IITs of the country .The 2^nd opposite party is  one of the branch office of the 1^st opposite party.

05. The complainant alleged that at the time of admission, the complainant paid the full course fees  of Rs.2,91,109/-  by way of demand draft and postdated cheques, to the 2^nd opposite party, that the complainant son regularly attended class from January 2013 to July 2014  and thereafter  because of lack of proper infrastructure and class room facility, the complainant decided to withdraw his son from the 2^nd opposite party institution and requested the opposite party  to return the advance fees as well as post dated cheques  from September 2014 to July 2015  amounting to Rs.81,018/- 

06. The opposite parties contended that the complainant and his son  at the time  of enrollment entered into an agreement with the opposite party and given an undertaking not to claim the refund of fee  under any circumstances and therefore as   per terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant is not entitled for  refund of the  course fee of Rs.81,018/- .

07. There is no dispute between both the parties that the total course for three years including service tax and cost of books and study material was Rs.2,91,110/-. According to the complainant, he paid a total sum of Rs.2,91,109/- by way of demand draft and post dated cheques.  On the other hand the opposite parties contended  that the opposite parties received only 2,10,091/- from the complainant and remaining course fees  of Rs.81,018/- is still outstanding and complainant is liable to pay the said amount to the opposite party.

08. The complainant filed Ex.A1 enrollment form and Ex.A2 fees acknowledgement.  In Ex.A1 annexure,  terms and condition for post dated cheques, it is clearly stated that the complainant and his son agreed as follows. “I further agree to get above post dated cheques(s) cleared, even if  my son/ daughter/ward discontinues studies at FITIEE irrespective of any reasons”.  Further  in page No.10 of the enrollment form. There is undertaking given by the complainant and his son. In the said undertaking  clause No.(8)  reads as follows:     

“Undertake that if I leave the institute midway before completing the full course any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to transfer of my Father/Mother/Legal Guardian/ill health of myself or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/course engineering college etc., or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc., I or my Father/Mother/Legal Guardian shall not be entitled for refund of fees”.

 The opposite party also filed the copy of the enrollment and same has been  marked as Ex.B3. It seems that both Ex.A1 and Ex.B3 are copies of  one and the same document. But in Ex.A1 undertaking form there is no signature of the complainant and his son.  On the other hand in Ex.B3 the complainant and his son signed in the undertaking form on 23.01.2013 at Chennai. The complainant suppressed the original undertaking form and filed a copy of undertaking form without the signature of complainant and his son. The complainant has not disputed their signature in Ex.B3. Hence this commission accepted Ex.B3 and found that the complainant and his son have given an undertaking to the opposite parties that they are not entitled for refund of the  when the leave his institution before completing full course for any reason what so ever.

09. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the Hon’ble National Commission in “Brilliant Classes – Vs- Ashbel Sam” (judgment dated 29.01.2010) in Revision Petition No.270 of 2006) has held as under.

        “On the merits of the case also we are in full agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the  refund of the fee on the plea of the institute holding irregular classes or rendering sub-standards lessons. ….. the respondent/complainant was a willing party to the agreement that the course fee will not be refunded, even if he withdrew in the midstream. In this view of the matter, no cause of action will arise for the petitioner/opposite parties to refund the amount.”

The above decision is  also applicable to fact of the present case. In this case also the complainant and his father have given an undertaking to the opposite parties that they are not entitled for refund of course fees, if he  leave the institution before completing the course.  Further the complainant  has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties neither in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit.  Under these circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are not liable to refund a sum of Rs. 81,018/- towards advance fees to the complainant, and the complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost.  

 

 

10.POINT NO:4

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th  day of February2022

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 23.12.2012                   Enrolment Form

Ex.A2 dated 23.01.2013                   Fee Acknowledgement

Ex.A3 dated 09.09.2014          Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties along with postal receipts and acknowledgement card

Ex.A4 dated 01.10.2014          Legal Notice issued by the counsel for complainant to the opposite parties along with postal receipts and proof for delivery from the internet site of the  postal department.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 07 .07. 2012                 Board Resolution

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Hall Ticket

Ex.B3 dated 23.01.2013                   Enrollment Form

Ex.B4 dated 23.01.2013                   Enrollment acknowledgment

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT