DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.81/2014
Sh. Vaibhav Bali
S/o Sh. M. L. Bali,
H.No.5, II Flooor
Gali No.2, Sunder Park,
Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110031 ….Complainant
Versus
Sharda Institute of Indian Management Research
7 Institutional Phase-II, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 25.02.14 Date of Order : 14.12.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he got admission in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management for the bench 2013-15 and paid Rs.25,000/- vide OP’s receipt No.15649 dated 07.08.09. The OP asked him to pay Rs.1 lac by 15.08.2013 as first installment of the total fees as the total fees was Rs.3 lacs for the entire two year progamme i.e. 2013-15. He wanted to know the details of the course for applying for the educational loan but the OP did not provide the required information for 2 months and also OP had not informed him regarding the starting date of the course. He was fed up with the attitude of the OP and decided to withdraw from the OP course and sought refund of the fees deposited within 30 days without attending any classes or utilizing any service facility from the OP but in vain. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% from the date of deposit till actual payment,
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant at the hands of OP,
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant as litigation charges.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the Complainant has not produced any offer letter and the receipt of the deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- with the OP. He has also not produced any documents to show that the OP asked him to pay Rs.1 lac by 15.08.13 as installments of the total fees. Hence, all the allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint are false and baseless. As per the judgment of P. T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust, SLP Civil No.22532 of 2012 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “ in view of the judgment of this court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore in the matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special petition. Thus, the special leave petition is hereby dismissed.” Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Accordingly, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP has made a statement on 15.10.15 that he does not want to file affidavit in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant.
We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and have also carefully gone through the record.
We straightaway advert to the issue, whether the relief is admissible to the Complainant as prayed for?
Complainant has failed to mark exhibit nos. or annexure nos. on the corresponding documents.
The Complainant has filed a receipt dated 07.08.13 issued by the OP for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as registration fee (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure-A). The OP vide letter dated 07.08.2013 issued a letter whereby the Complainant was given admission call letter for PGDM programme 2013-15 and requested the Complainant to deposit first installment of Rs.1 lac till 15.08.2013 (copy Annexure-B for the purposes of identification). However, the complainant did not take admission in the course and the Complainant vide letter dated 27.08.13 requested the OP for refund of the fees (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure-C.)
It is evident from the record that the Complainant took the admission in the OP institute for PGDM course for the year 2013-15 and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The Complainant vide letter dated 27.08.13 requested the OP to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The Complainant has not joined the course and not attended any class with the OP.
Therefore, if for any reasons whatsoever, the Complainant did not or could not pursue the said programme the OP was not justified to forfeit the deposited amount of Rs.25000/-. Therefore, not refunding the deposited amount by the OP to the Complainant amounted to deficiency in service. Therefore, the OP was deficient in service and also adopted unfair trade practice while not refunding the amount of Rs.25000/- to the Complainant. Accordingly we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service. Judgment cited on behalf of the OP is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.25000/- towards registration fee and Rs.7500/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and legal expenses to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.6% per annum on the amount of Rs.25000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till 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.
Announced on 14.12.16.
