DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 331/09
Bhagat Singh,
VPO MANPUR, Theshil - Hathin
Distt. Palwal, Haryana - 121105 -Complainant
Vs
NIIT
(Through its Secretary)
D-5, South Extention Centre
New Delhi -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 13.04.2009 Date of Order: 16.07.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
Succinctly stated, the case of the complainant is that he took admission in the institute of OP vide Registration No. R090020108215 for the programme called “Certificate in web Component Developing using Java Technology” for consideration of Rs.15,730/- on 20.9.2008 in lieu of service to be rendered by OP. The course was to start on 30.8.2008. He alleges that on account of developing serious illness he could not attend the classes in the institute of the OP. Therefore, he requested the OP to cancel his admission and to refund the fee paid by him which was refused by the OP. Since he could not get the fee refunded he requested to transfer his name in Faridabad Centre and accordingly made the request on 22.10.2008. Accordingly he was directed to visit Faridabad Centre after a week. However, the complainant was shocked that “after passing of around a month no action has been taken by the OP for transferring his name to Faridabad Centre”. In these circumstances, he again visited the office of the OP and requested for immediate transfer of his name to Faridabad Centre with another request to the OP to make the payment of difference amount of fee for Delhi Centre to Faridabad Centre from him as promised earlier. After lot of persuasion the OP refunded Rs. 2730/- vide cheque bearing no. 030015 dated 21.11.08. Complainant was also provided with the course material with promises/assurance that his name will be transferred to Faridabad Centre. Despite making several visits to the OP Centre of Faridabad his name was not transferred to Faridabad Centre. Ultimately, in the last week of December 2008 complainant was constrained to ask for refund of entire amount from the OP which was refused by the OP without assigning any plausible reason. Accordingly, the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 8.1.09. Feeling aggrieved by the treatment given to him by the OP and pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP he has moved this forum with the following prayers:
“A) Direct the OP to make the refund of balance amount of Rs. 13000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand only) along with interest @ 18% and/or
- Direct the OP to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards damages, harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to acts of OP and/or
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost.
OP has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint. OP has relied upon Clause 8.0 of provision for refunds wherein as per Clause 8.1 – “application fee and admission fee are non-refundable.” Clause 8.2 – “refund of tuition fee are possible in full if the student wishes to withdraw from a course scheduled start date of the programme/course. The courseware fees (including CDS) will be refunded only if the courseware is returned unopened and undamaged.” It is further stated that as per rules the complainant was not entitled for refund of tuition fee but OP as a goodwill gesture agreed to refund the tuition fee. Accordingly, OP refunded Rs. 2,730/- to the complainant towards tuition fee. Further, the courseware fee could be refunded if it was returned unopened and undamaged. Since the complainant failed to return the courseware, therefore, he is not entitled for refund of Rs. 13,000/- towards the courseware fee. The OP has denied that OP had directed the complainant to do the course from Faridabad Centre.
Complainant has filed rejoinder and admitted that he applied for withdrawal from the course due to his illness. However, the complainant has not specifically denied the non-returning of courseware.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Razdan, National Channel Development & Business Audit Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments on behalf of the OP have been filed.
We have heard the arguments of the counsel for OP and have also perused the file very carefully.
Admittedly, as per the terms and conditions of the course vide Clause 8.1 - application fee and admission fee are non-refundable and the courseware fees (including CDS fee) will be refunded only if the courseware is returned unopened and undamaged. The OP has already refunded Rs. 2,730/- to the complainant. However, on account of failure of the complainant to return the courseware unopened and undamaged, the courseware fee was not refundable. More so, the complainant of his own volition withdrew from the course due to illness.
In view of the above discussion, 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 16.07.2016
Case No. 331/09
16.07.2016
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
