CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 147/14
Kamleshwar Prasad,
H.No. 32, Type III,
Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi. -Complainant
Vs
NRR Institute-489/55/II,
Malviya Nagar Corner,
Opp S-Block, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi – 110017. -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 16.04.2014
Date of Order: 5.5.2015
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Anjuman Parveen Alam, Member
O R D E R
N.K. Goel, President
As per averments made in the complaint, Shubham Riyal, son of the complainant, got admission to 2 years regular classroom program of IIT-JEE Entrance examination scheduled to be held during the year 2015 in the OP’s institute and the complainant deposited Rs. 1,73,000/- in all towards fee of total period of 2 years. His son attended the coaching classes upto the first week of December 2013. Thereafter, due to his health problem etc., he left the coaching classes from the second week of December 2013. Accordingly, the Head of the OP vide letter dated 3.3.14 was requested to refund the balance fee of 18 months amounting to Rs. 1,29,750/- but in vain. Hence, this complaint for directing the OP to refund the balance amount of Rs. 1,29,750/- along with litigation charges to the complainant.
Case No. 147/14
Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP. But notice issued to the OP was received back with the remarks, “refused by OP”. Therefore, our Ld. Predecessor raised a presumption of service and the OP has been proceeded exparte.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence along with written arguments. He has also filed the original receipts issued by the OP Institute for a total amount of Rs. 1,73,000/-.
We have gone through the file.
The averments made in the complaint have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Thus, the OP got deposited Rs. 1,73,000/- from the complainant for 2 years’ regular classroom program to be attended by the complainant’s son. The son of the complainant attended the classes for a period of six months and thereafter he had discontinued the classes due to health problems etc. Therefore, refund of fee for 18 months has been claimed by the complainant.
A similar question arose before the National Commission in M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Ishaan Punj, III (2014) CPJ 219 (NC). In that case the OP had got deposited fee for 2 years classroom program for IIT Joint Entrance Examination at the time of admission in Feb., 2006. The complainant vide his letters dated 8.2.07 and 19.2.07 intimated the OP that he did not want to continue with the course and requested the OP for refund of the balance fee of the 2nd year. The OP did not refund the balance fee of the 2nd year. A consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum. The OP resisted claim by submitting that out of total amount of Rs. 76,589/- deposited by the complainant, Rs. 69,500/- was towards course fee and Rs. 6,950/- was towards service tax and Rs. 139 was towards education cess. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs. 38,294.50 with cost of Rs. 1,100/- and Rs. 2,100/- as compensation and also further awarded 12%
Case No. 147/14
p.a. interest from 9.2.2006 till payment. The appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by the State Commission. The OP Petitioner filed the Revision Petition before the National Commission. The contention made on behalf of the OP Petitioner was that in compliance to order of the State Commission Rs. 38,294/- has already been refunded to the respondent/complainant and the issue raised before the National Commission was with regard to the payment of interest and cost. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
“6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2003) 6 SCC 696 – Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, in which it was observed that education institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, but it an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require the student to give a bond/bank guarantee for balance fees for the whole course. It was further observed that if educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution and balance fees must be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank which may be withdrawn as and when fees falls and at the end of the course, interest on those deposits will be paid to the student from whom fees was collected in advance.
- Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court has permitted advance fees for the whole course and has further permitted to get bond/bank guarantee from the student for the balance fees for the whole
Case No. 147/14
course if not received in advance, meaning thereby institution does not commit any deficiency in receiving fees for the whole course except to the extent that balance fees is to be deposited in FDR and interest accrued on that is to be returned to the student. He further submitted that as 50% of the fees as ordered by District Forum has already been refunded immediately after State Commission’s order in such circumstances, order levying interest and cost to be set aside.
- Perusal of record reveals that out of the fees deposited by the respondent Rs. 6,950/- was towards service tax and Rs. 139/- was towards education cess which did not go in the pocket of petitioner; even then, learned District Forum and State Commission allowed refund of 50% of the aforesaid amount. As revision petition has been admitted only to the point of payment of interest and cost, we deem it appropriate to set aside award of interest on two cournts; firstly, refund has been made just after 5 months of impugned order and District Forum allowed interest only if payment is not made within a period of 30 days. Had petitioner deposited this amount immediately after order interest was not payable. Petitioner had right to file the appeal and after dismissal of first appeal petitioner has refunded amount within 5 months, in such circumstances, respondent is not entitled to get interest; and
Case No. 147/14
secondly District Forum allowed refund of 50% of the tax deposited by petitioner on account of fees received from the respondent which apparently could not have been ordered. In such circumstances, or imposing interest is liable to be set aside.”
From the ratio decidendi laid down in the said judgement it becomes crystal clear that the educational institution can get deposited the prescribed fee for a period of more than one semester/year, the educational institution has to keep the balance fee in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank and it can be withdrawn as and when fees falls and at the end of the course, interest on those deposits will be paid to the student from whom fees was collected in advance. The educational institution does not commit any deficiency in receiving fees for the whole course except that the balance fee is to be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank and the interest accrued on that to be refunded to the student. From the said judgment it becomes crystal clear that if a student leaves the course after attending one semester/one year, he is entitled to be refunded the fee of the remaining period.
In the present case, the complainant attended the classes for six months. Therefore, the OP was liable to refund the fee for the remaining period of 1 ½ years to the complainant. According to the complainant Rs. 1,29,750/- is the amount towards the refund of the balance fee. Therefore, the OP committed deficiency in service by not refunding the fee of Rs. 1,29,750/- to the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the balance fee of 18 months amounting to Rs. 1,29,750/- to the complainant by means of cheque/DD in favour of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable
Case No. 147/14
to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the said amount w.e.f the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation.
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 5.5.15.
