Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is filed by original opposite party; feeling aggrieved by an order dtd.23.05.2017, passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, by which the complaint bearing No.612/2015 filed by the respondent herein has been partly allowed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under.
The son of the respondent herein had taken admission in the coaching classes of the appellant by paying total amount of Rs.79,656/-. It is alleged by the respondent that the appellant had misrepresented her by promising that the course approved by the State Education Board, will be taught in the coaching classes. It is further alleged by the respondent that after the admission it was found that the said promise given by the appellant was not fulfilled. A letter was written on 21.07.2015 for cancellation of the admission. It is further alleged by the respondent that as fee paid was not refunded after cancellation of the admission, she is cheated. Therefore, she filed consumer complaint before the Forum below seeking direction to the appellant to refund Rs.79,656/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay her compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
3. The appellant appeared before the Forum below and filed reply.
The submission of the appellant as made in its reply is as under.
At the time of taking of admission by the son of the respondent, it was informed to the respondent and her son that as per terms & conditions of the offer letter fees paid are not refundable. They accepted the said condition and signed the offer letter dtd.08.01.2015 given to them by the appellant. Thereafter, they deposited the fees of which receipt is also issued and filed on record. The son of the respondent issued an email on 11.07.2015 to the respondent and requested to refund the fees as he is not willing to continue because of his personal problems. The said copy of email is also filed on record. The said email was issued after lapse of six months from the date of admission and that too after attending the classes by the son of the respondent. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to refund of the said fees. Moreover, another letter dtd.21.07.2015 was written by the respondent to the appellant, in which new ground is raised that as the syllabus of coaching will not cover the State Board Syllabus, the admission is to be cancelled. The seat of the son of the complainant after cancellation of the admission was left vacant as the appellant could not admit any other student in his place in the middle of the session and therefore the appellant suffered loss due to cancellation of his admission. It is denied that the appellant did not give information regarding course to the respondent. It is also denied that false promise was given by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant is, thus, not liable to refund the fees and hence it was prayed by the appellant that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4. The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record passed the impugned order holding that as the admission of the respondent’s son was cancelled because of not teaching of State Board syllabus in the coaching class, though promised by the appellant and as no reply was given to the letter dtd.21.07.2015 by the appellant and as allegations made in the complaint by the respondent are proved, the respondent is entitled to refund of fees with interest. The Forum below, therefore, directed the appellant to refund Rs.79,656/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.07.2015 to the respondent and also to pay her compensation of Rs.5,000/- for physical & mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2,500/-.
5. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the original opposite party. Notice of this appeal was issued by this Commission and it was given Hamdast to the appellant’s advocate for service by Registered Post A.D. Accordingly, the appellant’s advocate sent the said notice alongwith compilation of the appeal by Registered Post A.D. on 18.09.2017 to the respondent on her same address given in the appeal memo. He produced the postal receipt alongwith Track Report obtained from India Post Website. It shows that the said envelop was delivered on the given address. This Commission did not receive acknowledgement about service of notice. Considering that notice was sent by Registered Post A.D. on the correct address of the respondent and considering the Track Report produced on record, it was held that the notice wa duly served to the respondent. The respondent failed to appear. Therefore, this Commission proceeded exparte against the respondent as per order dtd.14.02.2018. The appellant’s advocate thereafter filed Written Notes of Argument. However, today none appeared for the appellant for making oral submission.
6. We have, therefore, perused the entire record & proceedings of the appeal.
7. The learned advocate of the appellant in his Written Notes of Arguments reiterated the aforesaid case of the appellant and submitted that the Forum below has given goby to the Rules & Regulations of the appellant, which say that the fees cannot be refunded if admission is cancelled after 10 days from the start of the batch and as the admission was cancelled after six months as per request of the respondent, fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the learned advocate of the appellant in his Written Notes of Arguments submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.
8. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of respondent that admission was cancelled either before start of the batch or within 10 days from the start of the batch. As per first email dtd.11.07.2015 sent by the son of respondent to the appellant, the second half (i.e. after vacation) of the classes were to start in the month of May 2015 and that due to personal reason the respondent’s son wanted to cancel the admission. Thus, the email was sent much after starting of the coaching classes.
9. Moreover, in the first email, no allegations were made that the appellant cheated the respondent and his son by not teaching the State Board syllabus. However in subsequent letter dtd. 21.07.2015, the said allegations were made. Therefore, it cannot be believed that due to misrepresentation of the respondent and his son by the appellant, the admission of the respondent’s son was taken in the aforesaid coaching classes of the appellant.
- The appellant filed Enrollment Form singed by the respondents and her son. Moreover, she also singed the Rules & Regulations appended to the Enrollment Form. The Rule Nos.20, 21, 22 & 23 are very specific. As per Rule 20 no amount deposited towards registration fees / admission fees will be adjusted against any other course in case of cancellation of admission. As per Rule 21, in case if admission is cancelled before the batch start date, 100% of tuition fees paid will be refunded after deduction of service tax. As per Rule 22, in case if admission is cancelled within 10 days after batch starts, 50% of tuition fees paid will be refunded after deduction of service tax. As per Rules 23, no fees will be refunded, if admission is cancelled after 10 days of batch start.
11. It is also not the case of the respondent that she and her son were not aware of said conditions, which they had signed. We also fiund that there is no evidence to prove that the respondent admitted her son in the coaching class of the appellant due to the some misrepresentation or cheating on the part of the appellant. Hence, the aforesaid rules / conditions are binding on the respondents and her son. We find that the Forum has not considered the said rules / conditions, which is resulted into erroneous order.
12. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has not rendered deficient service to the respondent due to refusing to refund fees after cancellation of admission, since admission was not cancelled before 10 days of starting date of the batch / course. Hence we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and it deserves to be set aside.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
iii. The complaint stands dismissed.
iv. No order as to costs in this appeal.
v. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
