BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Neha Bensal d/o Sh. Jagdish Bansal, House No.555-A, Sector 2, Panchkula.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  The Director, Pearl Academy of Fashion, SP 38A RIICO, Industrial Area, Kuka, Delhi Road, Jaipur-302001.

2.  EBONEY SCO No.195, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Prop./partner/authorized signatory

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. K.B.Singh, Adv. proxy for Rajesh Kumar Rai, Adv.                     for complainant.

Sh. Rakesh Chopra, Adv. for OP-1

OP-2 exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, on 8.7.2008 the complainant got admission with OP-1 in Fashion (FD) 1^st year and deposited Rs.3,33,500/- vide demand draft dated 10.7.2008 in favour of Pearl  Academy of Fashion  and subsequently paid Rs.51,500/- and Rs.7,200/- as bus charges.  However, due to unavoidable circumstances she could not continue her studies and left the institute on 15.9.2008. She informed the OP telephonically as well as through letter dated 24.9.2008 and requested for refund but only an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was refunded. Thereafter the complainant visited OP-1 at Jaipur number of times and also served a legal notice dated 12.7.2009 requesting for the refund of the balance amount but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OP-1 took preliminary objections inter alia that complaint is gross misuse and abuse of process of law; complainant was guilty of suppression of true and correct facts; there was no cause of action; complaint is not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction etc.  On merits most of the facts have been admitted.  It has been submitted that the complainant deposited the fee of Rs.3,33,500/- and Rs.51,500/- towards hostel and mess facilities after being fully satisfied. The receipt of letter dated 24.9.2008 from the complainant has been admitted after which the process of refund as per policy was started and she was refunded the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- which she accepted without raising any objection.  The receipt of legal notice has been admitted but the same was duly replied.   Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their short written reply OP-2 submitted that it was neither the agent nor in any way connected with the principal (OP-1)  for the purposes of conduct of interviews, admission or course and it had only facilitated the availability  of the application forms. It has been pleaded that the answering OP was impleaded just to invoke jurisdiction and thus prayed that it may be declared as unnecessary party to the present lis.

       Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of OP-2 hence it was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.           The contention of the Counsel for the OP is that they have already refunded the fee to the complainant as was refundable in accordance with the guidelines on refund of fees a copy of which is Annexure OP-1/5.  They have also referred to Annexure OP-1/1 in which the complainant had given it in writing that she has gone through the refund fee policy as well as the students guideline/instructions as given in the students hand book pertaining to Academy`s policy on minimum attendance requirements etc., etc. and non payment of fees etc.  She accepted and acknowledged the same and also agreed to accept the decision taken by the Academy as per the rules and policies written and read over by them.  As per the refund policy Annexure OP-1/5 the entire registration and admission fees is to be forfeited if the student admitted to a course had joined and attended classes for more than 30 calendar days.  Similarly the laboratory, library and centre charges and tuition fee is also liable to be forfeited.  The amount which is to be refunded is mentioned as examination fee, security deposit and alumni membership.  The complainant had not mentioned in her complaint on which date she joined the course and for how many days she attended the said course.  She rather gave an impression through the complaint as if she has not at all jointed the course or attended any classes.  The true facts came to light when the OP filed the reply mentioning that the session commenced from 31.07.2008, she had joined the course and attended the classes and it was only on 24.09.2009 that she showed her inability to continue the course and requested for refund of the fees. According to the OP what ever fee was liable to be refunded had already been refunded to the complainant vide a draft copy of which is Annexure C-9, even before she filed the present complaint.  The complainant herself gave the details through Annexure C-10 showing that the registration fee, hostel accommodation fee and fee for one semester has been forfeited. The OPs refunded to the complainant security, alumni fee, exam fee, hostel security and tuition fee for the next semester as well as the hostel mess fee for November and December mess charges total amounting to Rs.1,70,000/-.  The remaining amount of Rs.2,02,000/- was forfeited as given in Annexure C-10  which the complainant demanded through this complaint but otherwise has not been able to justify her claim in view of the refund policy of the OP.

7.           In para number 3 of the complaint she mentioned that due to some unavoidable circumstances she could not continue her studies and finally left the institute on 15.09.08, she intimated to the OP through her letter dated 24.09.08 in this respect.  In the entire complaint there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP mentioned by her.  It was therefore her own decision to continue with the studies or not.  In similar circumstances in case of Jasleen Kaur vs. MD A.K. Vidya Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2005(3)CLT 584, where the appellant attended the classes for 3 days and left the course midway and it was held that she was not entitled to the refund of fee.  On the other hand the complainant has referred to Dr.Prem Seth and Anr. vs. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla and Anr.  2009(1) CPC 304, Sri Ganga Higher Secondary School vs. C.Nithya (Minor) 2008(1)CLT  114 and ICFAI University & Anr. vs. Shailendra Lodha 2008(3)CLT 80.  These authorities are on different facts and are not applicable to the present case.  Otherwise also in view of the Authority of our own Commission referred to above, the law laid down through these Authorities cannot be applied to this case.

8.           The Learned Counsel for the complainant has also referred to Pie Solutions and Systems Ltd. vs. Daya Shanker Mishra  I(2007) CPJ 115 (NC).  In that case the fee was paid to a coaching institute which was to be joined by the consumer after clearing 12th class examination, in which unfortunately he failed.  He therefore could not join the said institute.  It was under those circumstances ordered by the Hon`ble National Commission that the fee should be refunded. It is not so in the present case.  The Learned Counsel has also referred to M.V.J College of Engineering vs. Tukaram Rao IV (2008) CPJ 247 (NC). In that case the student was admitted in engineering college and secured a seat in another college through CET examination. It was noticed that the petitioner appellant was not covered under CET but had started the admission process much ahead of CET admission.  In that case also the respondent had  not attended any classes and in view of the circular issued by University Grants Commission, the petitioner appellant was liable to refund the fees.  It is not so in the present case.  In this manner none of the Authorities cited by Learned Counsel for the complainant is helpful to her.

9.           Before filing the present complaint the complainant had served a notice on the OP copy of which is Annexure C-11. The OP sent a reply to the said notice copy of which is Annexure OP-1/4. However the complainant due to dishonest intentions did not place the reply of the notice with the complaint, so that the true facts do not come to the notice of this Forum while admitting the complaint at preliminary stage.  Even in the complaint as referred above the complainant has not mentioned as to on which date she joined the OP institute and for how many calendar days she attended the said institute.  An effort therefore had been made by the complainant from the very beginning to conceal the true facts, so that the complaint is admitted for hearing and the OPs are harassed.  Such litigants who come to the Forum with dishonest intentions are to be thrown out even on merits.

10.          From these facts, it is clear that the OP has already refunded the fees to the complainant to what so ever amount she was entitled.  She had no claim to the remaining amount. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP but she herself left the studies due to her own “unavoidable circumstances”.  She had already given it in writing that she would be bound by the refund policy of the OP but did not mention the same in the complaint.

11.          We are therefore of the opinion that it is a false and frivolous complaint filed by the complainant, simply to harass the OPs.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the OPs as special costs as provided under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.