DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

  Case No. 97/08

George Kutty

S/o Late Sh. T.V. Thomas

R/o  C-12, Sector 26, Noida                          -Complainant

                                Vs

Chairman,

Narayana Group of Educational Institutions,

47 B Kalu Sarai,

New Delhi - 110016                                       -Opposite Party

                                    Date of Institution: 13.02.2008                                  Date of Order:         12.08.2016

Coram:

N.K. Goel, President

Naina Bakshi, Member

S.S. Fonia, Member             

O R D E R

        Admitted facts of the parties are that Master Tony Thomas,  son of the complainant had taken admission for IIT JEE Coaching in the OP’s  institute vide admission No. 217-0235 and paid an amount of Rs. 51,124/- to the OP.  The complainant’s son left the coaching in the mid stream and the complainant asked the OP to refund the fee which was ultimately denied to be paid by the OP vide Annex. A-3 on the ground that “the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever may be the reasons, nor is it adjustable towards any other existing courses”.  Even service of legal notice on the OP did not yield any result.

        According to the complainant, at the time of registration the OP had assured the complainant that the coaching classes will not only help the student in JEE but also will help him in performing better in his regular school and inspite of the assurance, the complainant’s son faced a lot of difficulties in coping up with the class work and the coaching classes as the syllabus/teaching methods in the OP’s institution were entirely different and that the said problem was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities but the authorities did not pay attention and also that the complainant’s son had no option but was forced to discontinue the classes within a week as a last resort.  Therefore, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 51,124/- being the coaching fee paid in advance with 9% interest, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment, frustration and mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- towards cost of legal notice and other expenses.

        In the reply, OP has inter-alia stated that the son of the complainant did not attend the coaching classes of his own free wish and will and he blocked one seat in coaching course of the OP whereby one deserving student failed to undertake the coaching course.  It is further stated that in the enrolment form of the OP’s institute, it is stated that “the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever may be the reasons, nor is it adjustable towards any other existing courses”.  It is further submitted that the complainant and his son had signed the enrolment form which contains the following paragraphs:

“ In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity, that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever be the reasons, nor is it adjustable towards any other existing courses at “Narayana Group of Education Institutions” or any yet to be launched nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student.

I understand that if my daughter/daughter/ward withdraws from the course to which he/she has been admitted at any point of time or does not attend the course and thus the seat given to him/her is rendered vacant in that batch, due to withdrawal of a student after the starting of classes, no refund will be made whatsoever. 

I am signing the above declaration in good mental/physical health.  I have satisfied myself about “Narayana IIT Academy”.  The necessary enrolment form, including this form was received by me in advance before the date of signing to enable me to understand the terms and conditions of taking admission at “NARAYANA IIT ACADEMY”. I have taken expert opinion regarding matters which were not clear to me and I am satisfied.”

Hence, the complainant and his son after understanding and going through the contents of enrolment form  and after agreeing to the same signed the same; that the complainant’s son due to his own interest and by his own free wish left the OP’s Institute.  By pleading that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        Complainant has filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein he has not specifically controverted the averments made in the reply.

        Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Nagesh Babu, Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

        Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

        We have heard the arguments of counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.

        Complainant has filed the copy of communication letter dated 31.8.2007 sent by the OP to him as Ex. CW1/C (CW1/3) which inter-alia states as under:

“It is observed that your ward has dropped out of the course due to not been able to cope with school as well as our coaching.

In terms of provisions of fee refund as mentioned in the enrolment form duly signed by you “the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever may be the reasons, nor is it adjustable towards any other existing courses. The parent will make all necessary arrangements for the post dated cheques, if any,  to be honoured and will keep sufficient funds on or before the due date for the same even if the student decides to discontinue studies irrespective of the reasons.”

        It is proved that the complainant’s son had left the OP’s Institute of his own and that the seat vacated by him had been left vacant.  Undeniably, the complainant and his son had signed the enrolment form which contained the above stated terms and conditions.

        In view of the judgment of National Commission in FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni in RP No. 2054 of 2013 decided on 8.10.15, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to refund of the fee.  As the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP, we  dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

         Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                        (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                 (N. K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

Announced on  12.8.2016

Case No. 97/08

11.8.2016

Present –   None. 

            Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                        (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                 (N. K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT