DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.391/2014

Sh. Gagan Singh

H.No. 3309, Street No. E/72, Moller Band Ext.

Badarpur, New Delhi-110044                                              ….Complainant

Versus

Narayana IIT, PMT Academy

Through the Director

E/14, 3^rd and 4^th Main Market,

South Extn.-II, New Delhi-110049                             ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      : 14.10.14               Date of Order                 : 18.01.19

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant’s son, namely, Anish Kumar passed with 71% marks in class 12^th from Himachal and he was interested to join IIT so the complainant called  the OP Institute and met with Ms. Nisha and enquired about the admission procedure and she stated that it is very good marks and his son  will get the admission. On 17^th July the complainant alongwith his son met with Ms. Nisha and deposited Rs.5000/- and Rs.30,000/- as admission fee on 15^th July.  The OP has stated that Rs.35,000/- towards first semester fees. The complainant’s son attended three days classes and enquired from the teacher that how much percentage is required for IIT admission then the teacher said that 80% marks are required. When the complainant visited the institute and asked Ms. Nisha that you were saying that 60% was required for admission but now your teaching is saying 80% then Ms. Nisha said that before admission you must know all these things.  The complainant requested the OP to refund the fees after deduction for books and four days classes. The OP agreed that within 15-20 days the cheque will come to the complainant’s home.  It is submitted that after 54 days the complainant received an amount of Rs.12,999/- only. When the complainant asked the OP regarding deductions of Rs. 22,001/- then they replied that they do not know anything as the cheque had been received from Hyderabad office.  It is submitted that the complainant’s son lost his one year study and did not try any other institute. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.22,001/- with interest of 1 year and given penalty charges as his son missed 1 year.   

OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.05.15.

Complainant has his filed his affidavit in evidence.

We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also gone  through the file very carefully.

The complainant has filed the copy of receipt dated 14.07.14 issued by the OP which we mark as Annexure-A for the purposes for identification. The complainant filed the photocopy of the cheque issued by the OP dated 03.09.14 for an amount of Rs.12,999/- which we mark as Annexure-B A for the purposes for identification.  The OP issued a refund details which we mark as Annexure-C for the purposes for identification.

OPs have the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but did not choose to contest it.

During the proceeding dated 16.01.19 the complainant has stated that he has already received an amount of Rs.13000/- after two months but before filing of the complaint.  The complainant had paid first semester fees for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. As per the Annexure-C the OP has deducted an amount towards admission of Rs.17,978/- and for study material of Rs.4,000/-, total deducted amount of Rs.21,978/- and the OP vide cheque dated 03.09.14 refunded an amount of Rs.12,999/- to the complainant. The complainant’s son on his own stopped going to OP institute after attending 3-4 classes and the complainant in his complaint requested the OP to refund an amount after deduction of books and 4 classes. The OP after necessary deductions already refunded an amount of Rs.12,999/- before filing the complaint.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant is not a “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly 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.

Announced on 18.01.19.