DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 971 of 2009 Date of Inst: 14.07.2009 Ms.Vinayshree D/o Sh.Jatinder Khurana r/o House No.63, Top Floor, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. The Abhimanu Visions (E) Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147, First Floor, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh through its Director. 2. Anil Narula, Director, The Abhimanu Visions (E) Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.147, First Floor, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Nitesh, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Paramjit Batta, Adv. for complainant Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Ms.Vinayshree has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) refund a sum of Rs.19,500/- deposited by the complainant as fee. ii) Pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension. iii) Pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that OP-2 is running an institute (OP-1) for preparing the students for competitive exams conducted by UPSC. The complainant wanted to appear in such examination to be held in 2007-08. So she joined the institute on 14.07.2007 and paid a sum of Rs.19,500/- (which including the admission charges and one time fee for the whole course). The said course was to commence from 15.07.2007. The complainant attended the classes for two weeks and thereafter she discontinued the classes due to unavoidable circumstances and requested for refund of the deposited amount after deduction of proportionate fee. According to the complainant, firstly OPs assured her to refund the fees but thereafter they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. OPs did not refund the fee despite several requests. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 15.05.09 upon OPs but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, the facts with regard to admission of the complainant in its institute and deposit of Rs.19,500/- as admission charges have been admitted. It has been pleaded that the complainant attended the classes for about 5 weeks instead of 2 weeks as stated in the legal notice as well as in the complaint and thereafter she left the institute of her own sweet will and after about 21 months served a legal notice dated 15.05.2009. According to OPs, as per the terms and conditions of the admission form(Annexure R-3), the fees once paid shall not be refunded in the event of student’s failure to continue the classes. It has further been pleaded that the complainant left the course in the midway without intimation and therefore, the seat left by the complainant could not filled due to which the institute had to suffer loss. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant has left the course of her own will. So as per declaration signed by the complainant, she is not entitled to the refund of the fees. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant had attended the classes for about two weeks. Thereafter, due to some unavoidable circumstances, she had to leave the course. Later on, she requested OPs to refund the fees which was admittedly not refunded till date on the ground that the fees once paid is not refundable. Admittedly, as per the attendance sheet (Annexure R-1) shown by the OPs themselves, the complainant attended the classes from 13.07.2007 to 12.08.2007 and thereafter the complainant never attended the classes. In our view, the OPs have no right to retain the remaining fees on the ground that fees once paid is not refundable despite the fact that the complainant had made a specific request for refund of her fee. In the case titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)”, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:- “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’. 6. The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. 7. This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extensor”. 6. Similar view has been taken in the case titled as Sh.Atam Parkash Khatter and another Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and Others passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.13308 of 2009 decided on 21.07.2010 and in the Revision Petition No. 3926 OF 2009 titled as The Registrar, Andhra University and another Versus Janjanam Jagedeesh decided on 06.07.2010 by the Hon'ble National Commission . 7. Ratio of the aforesaid cases cited above is inconsonance with the guidelines issued by the UGC where as no notice of these guidelines was taken in the case titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Sh.Ashbel Sam (supra). Any clause in the prospectus/agreement contrary to these guidelines is of no effect. So the ratio of case titled as Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh(supra) is applicable. 8. In view of the ratio of the case cited above, the Complainant is entitled to the refund of the fees, after deducting the proportionate amount of the fees for the period the complainant has attended the OP-institute. Non-refund of the remaining tuition fee in the circumstances mentioned above amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. 9. So the present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant at the time of admission after deducting the following: i) Rs.1000/- as administration charges as per UGS guidelines. ii) Proportionate fees from 13.07.2007 to 12.08.2007. In addition to this, the Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for physical harassment & mental agony and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.7,000/-. 10. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay the above said amount (excluding cost of litigation) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 11. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Sd/- Announced (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) 03.02.2011 PRESIDENT Cm Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
