Delhi

East Delhi

CC/463/2017

parv gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

target iit - jee - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 463/17

 

Master Parv Gupta

(Through his father Shri Vishal Gupta)

R/o House no. 30, Geeta Apartment

Block-17, Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031                 …….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Target IIT Jee – PMT

(Through its owner Mr. Javed)

106, First Floor, Pragati Deep Building

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                               …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 06.11.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 10.05.2019

Judgement Passed on: 15.05.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Master Parv Gupta through his father Shri Vishal Gupta, being minor against M/s. Target IITJEE-PMT (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that Shri Vishal Gupta, father of complainant, have stated that in the month of June 2017, his son namely Shri Parv Gupta sought admission for preparation of medical entrance examination in the coaching institute “Target IITJEE-PMT Classes” of Mr. Javed (OP), fees of which was fixed Rs. 50,000/- for 2 years.  The complainant was told by Mr. Javed that there were 3 days’ trial classes who insisted the complainant to make the payment pre-commencement of trial who assured that full payment will be refunded if the ward did not like the classes.  On his assurance, complainant paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to OP on 11.06.2017 and post dated cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was also given.

            He has further stated that after attending the trial class for one day, the complainant withdrew his son as the complainant found unfit service for coaching.  He demanded the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- as well as post-dated cheque.  Mr. Javed returned the post dated cheque, but did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- which he assured to be returned after 90 days as per company policy.  Even after expiry of 90 days, OP have not returned the said amount.  Since Mr. Javed have not returned the amount, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony as well as physical harassment.  Hence, he has prayed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith 18% interest; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.         In the reply, filed on behalf of OP, they have stated that the complainant had taken 3 demo classes on 3^rd, 4^th and 10^th June 2017 and after full satisfaction, requested for admission by paying an amount of      Rs. 25,000/-. 

            It was submitted that after taking demo classes and taking admission, the complainant attended various classes in the OP’s institute.  Thereafter, the complainant with his father came to OP and told that he was unable to continue with the class as they were going to shift somewhere else and requested for returning the post dated cheque of Rs. 25,000/-.  Considering the request of complainant, OP retuned the post dated cheque of Rs. 25,000/-.

            It was further stated that as per clause no. 3 of the terms and conditions, after depositing money towards ‘Registration & Admission’, if a student becomes disinterested in the Institute due to any reason whatsoever and wants to take his/her money back, the institute will not refund the money deposited towards registration fee/admission fee.  Thus, as per terms and conditions, the complaint was not entitled to claim for refund of the admission fee as the complaint took admission after taking     3 demo classes and attended various classes after taking admission.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.  

In defence, OP have not filed any evidence.

6.         We have heard father of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the testimony of the complainant and the documents placed on record, it is evident that the complainant have paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of card swipe against which a receipt has been issued on 11.06.2017 and post dated cheque of Rs. 25,000/- making a total of Rs. 50,000/-.  The testimony of the complainant which has gone unrebutted is to the effect that Mr. Javed have returned the post dated cheque for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and have not refunded an amount of            Rs. 25,000/- which was paid digitally (through card).  As OP have not filed the evidence, the defence taken in the written statement cannot be accepted.  That being so, the version of complainant have to be accepted. 

If a look is made to the terms and conditions printed on the back of admission form, it is noticed that Clause 3 of terms and conditions say that after depositing money towards ‘Registration & Admission’, if a student becomes disinterested in the Institute due to any reason whatsoever and wants to take his/her money back, the institute will not refund the money deposited towards registration fee/admission fee.  However, if a student applies for refund before the commencement of the course/classes, only admission fee and first installment of tuition fee will be refunded alongwith post dated cheques submitted.

In the present case, Mr. Javed (OP) have returned the post dated cheque, but he has not been refunded the first installment of Rs. 25,000/- which he has paid.  When Mr. Javed have refunded the post dated cheque, certainly, the complainant was also entitled for refund of Rs. 25,000/-, being the first installment of tuition fee as no evidence has been filed by OP that son of the complainant attended the classes.    

The case of the complainant for refund was covered under Clause    3 of the terms and conditions of admission form.  The fact that complaiannt have not been refunded the first installment of tuition fee of Rs. 25,000/- certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has also to be compensated. 

In view of the above, we order that the complainant be refunded the first installment of tuition fee of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of order.  We further award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- which includes the cost of litigation.  The said order be complied within a period of 30 days.  If not complied, compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall also carry 9% interest from the date of order.   

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President