DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.472/2013
Sh. R. K. Meena
C-427, Sarojni Nagar
New Delhi-110023 ….Complainant
Versus
NRR Institute
489/55/II Malviya Nagar,
Opp. S. Block, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi-110017 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 09.09.13 Date of Order : 03.09.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that at the time of registration of his son Master Aman (Minor) in the two year Programme of Engineering, the OP had assured him that the coaching classes will help the student in IIT/REC with an extremely world class teaching programme for engineering but inspite of this assurance the Complainant’s son faced a lot of difficulties in the coaching whose starting date was July 2012 (Induction class) and his son was totally frustrated with the teaching imparted by the OP and after attending the classes for 3 months (as per Para 11 of the complaint) he became so disoriented that he decided not only to withdraw from the course but also to give up study of Science and to take economic instead in his school. He requested the administrative officer of OP that his son does not want to continue with the course and sought a refund of the amount of Rs. 143581/- which the complainant had deposited with the OP in cash (Rs. 1100/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 85,000/-) and Rs. 32841/- by means of a cheque on 17.10.2012. The OP stated that the request of refund of the fees could not be acceded in view of the declarations in the enrolment form which disentitled him for refund of fees once paid. The Complainant has stated that copy of enrolment form was not given to him and even otherwise collection of the advance fees for two years amounted to unfair trade practice and the OP was in a dominant position vis-à-vis the complainant. The OP failed to discharge its commitment and responsibility and rendered the deficient and negligent services. Hence, the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to reimburse the amount of Rs.143581/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of respective payment as per receipts.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation and damages alongwith 18% interest.
OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.02.2014 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and written arguments.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
OP has the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but has not chosen to contest it.
Complainant has placed on record receipt dated 03.06.2012 for Rs.1100/- (Test), receipt dated 12.06.12 for Rs.25,000/-, receipt dated 01.07.2012 for Rs.85,000/-, receipt dated 17.10.12 for Rs.32841/- [(for the purpose of identification we mark the copies of receipts as Annexure A (colly)] which shows that the Complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs.143581/- with the OP as course fee for two years.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant. We proceed to decide the case on the presumption that the complainant and his son had signed the declarations contained in the enrolment form consciously and without any pressure and out of their free will.
The declarations given by the Complainant in the enrolment form at the time of admission debar the Complainant from seeking refund of the fee. There is no evidence to show that the vacancy created by leaving of the student midway is filled up by the OP. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, it was held that “it must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some education institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institution was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our considered view, an educational institution can only charge prescribed fee for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. As the Complainant’s son was not satisfied with the study pattern of the OP, he was forced to change science steam to humanities. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP”.
In view of aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we hold that OP has committed unfair trade practice by collecting fees for two years in one go. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct OP to refund the half of the fees taken by it from the Complainant towards the fee for two years duration.
Accordingly we direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs.71,240/-towards 50% of the tuition fee paid by the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its realization and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 71,240/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
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 03.09.16.
Case No. 472/13
03.09.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, we allow the complaint. OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.71,240/-towards 50% of the tuition fee paid by the Complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its realization and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 71,240/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
