Delhi

North East

CC/476/2014

Amit Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Om Tech. Solucation Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: (NE)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR,

NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.476/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Amit Kumar S/o Shri Dharamvir Singh D-170-A, Gali No.5, Mandoli Road, Jagatpuri, Delhi-110093		…Complainant
	Versus
	Omtech Solution Pvt. Ltd. (NIIT) F-2, Dilshad Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 Through its Head Madam Shruti and its Accountant Sanjiv Thakur NIIT Ltd. G-83, 1st Floor, Above HDFC Bank, Opposite Metro Pillar No.99, Preet Vihar, Delhi NIIT Ltd. 8, Balaji Estate, Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi	..Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	29.11.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	28.03.2016

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

 

Order

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a student and in August 2012 the father of the complainant contacted OP1 for admission of the complainant in NIIT institute through OP3 for a diploma in “Software Engineering” (GNIIT).  OP1 prescribed the fee for the said course as Rs.158,000/- which after bargaining by the father of the complainant was settled at Rs.1,50,000/-.  On 21.08.2012, the complainant got admission in the institute of OP1 and at the time of admission a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid and a receipt was also issued in the name of the complainant by OP1 along with student registration No.R131151400134 and student I.D. No. S131151400134.  At the time of admission it was settled between the OPs and father of the complainant that remaining amount of Rs.1,25,000/- will be paid in 23 instalments of Rs.5,434/- each.  No identity card was issued by the OPs to the complainant despite his several requests.  Till 08.07.2014, an amount of Rs.1,43,000/- approximately was paid by the father of the complainant and only Rs.7,000/-balance remained towards the complainant.   In the year 2014, OP1 transferred the complainant to OP2/NIIT, Preet Vihar, New Delhi where also complainant attended the classes for 1½ months.  It is further stated by the complainant that OP2 demanded extra fee of a sum of Rs.58,100/- from the complainant.  As per the complainant, he paid Rs.1,43,000/- to OP1 whereas as per the details of NIIT, Preet Vihar, New Delhi, Rs.96,650/- were deposited in the fee account of the complainant with late fees.  Complainant further stated that as per the settlement between father of the complainant and OP1 Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid by the complainant out of which Rs.1,43,000/- had been already been paid and OP2 has been demanding Rs.58,100/- from the complainant and when complainant tried to contact OP1 he did not cooperate with the complainant.  Complainant also informed the officials of OP2 that he has already paid Rs.1,43,000/- and only Rs.7,000/- are left but the officials of OP2 are demanding an amount of Rs.58,100/-  OP1 also demanded Rs.8,000/- extra from the complainant against the transfer of the course to OP2 failing which OP1 will not transfer the previous data regarding the course of the complainant to OP2 and also threatened that life and carrier of the complainant is very costly and if the complainant wants to save the same he should be paid Rs.8,000/-.  The complainant further stated that he is not in a position to pay Rs.58,100/- and on the other hand the officials of OP2 had given him the ultimatum to deposit Rs. 58,100/-  otherwise the life of the complainant will be hell.  The complainant made a complaint before P.S. Seema Puri on 11.11.2014 vide DD NO.76-D but no action has been taken by the police.  Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to get the course of the complainant completed within stipulated period without any extra charges or award Rs.1,43,000/- in favour of the complainant on account of admission fee, Rs.2,00,000/- for mental torture  and harassment faced by the complainant, Rs.3,00,000/- for wasting the precious time, life i.e. two years life of the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
2.           Notice was issued to all the OPs.  In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it is admitted that the complainant got admission in the institute of OP1 on 21.08.2012 in a diploma course in software engineering (GNIIT) which is a three years course of four semesters.  The fee of the said course is Rs.1,94,944/- including service tax of Rs.21,444/- and cost of books, other study material and one laptop but  it was settled with the complainant at Rs.1,42,500/- and service tax thereon of Rs.17,613/- i.e. a total fee of Rs.1,60,113/-.  The complainant paid initially an amount of Rs.25,000/- to OP1 on 21.08.2012 and the balance amount fee was settled to be paid in equal monthly instalment of Rs.5,434/-.  The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1,42,874/- to OP1 toward fee and a sum of Rs.17,239/- was due to him.  The complainant completed successfully his three semesters and on 28.08.2014, he gave an application to OP1 requesting to transfer him to other centre/institute of NIIT at Preet Vihar, Delhi.  The application was forwarded to the Head Office of NIIT and after receipt of approval and transfer order of the complainant from there the complainant was transferred to Preet Vihar as per his desire and necessary records of the complainant  were also transferred on receipt of transfer order online.  OP 1 further stated that after receipt of balance fee of fourth semesters from Head Office of NIIT four cheques of total amount of Rs.45,258/-to be paid in installments to the complainant were prepared by OP 1and out of those four cheques one cheque of Rs.8,989/- towards first installment was duly received by the complainant from OP1 which the complainant deposited at Preet Vihar Cenre on 27.09.2014.  OP 1 thereafter requested the complainant several times on phone and e mail to collect the remaining cheques but he never turned up to collect the same but instead threatened OP1 to return the entire fee and since the fee paid by the complainant had already been transferred to account of NIIT, OP1 showed its inability to meet the illegal demand of complainant.  OP1 is still ready to pay the remaining amount for which three cheques have already been prepared.  OP1 further submitted that complainant was issued an Identity Card because only after issue of I-card and I.D. No., student can activate his netbook and can appear in his exams.  Besides this online service were also provided to all the students to go through course fees, attendance, examined feedbook complaint etc. and the same were provided immediately after admission to the complainant  which the complainant was using during the period of its study.  On merits, OP1 has denied the allegations contained in the complaint except the admission of the complainant. 
3. OP 2 & 3 have filed their joint reply to the complaint and took the preliminary objection that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 2 & 3.  On merits they stated that OP1 was a licensee of NIIT Ltd. through an agreement entered into between the parties.  On 28.09.2011 OP1 was granted the licence to use trade name NIIT (for offering NIIT course to public at large).  They denied the facts that the fee was settled at Rs.1,50,000/- and stated that the total fee payable was Rs.1,54,650/-.   OP2 & 3 have denied the fact that the course of the complainant could not be completed due to fault of OP2.  It further stated that since the licensee has closed down its operation for further services the complainant was sent to Preet Vihar Centre for completing the course.  It is further stated that the complainant did not pay any fee to OP 2 & 3 and OP 2 & 3 cannot be held liable as OP 1 was not the joint ventures, partner etc. of NIIT Ltd. and the relationship between them was principal to principal as per the record maintained in ENCORE the complainant was required to pay the balance of Rs.58,100/- to OP2.  It is denied that any extra amount was demanded from the complainant or that the complainant ever contacted to OP 2 & 3. 
4. In replication to the reply filed by OP1, complainant has reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and further stated from the written statement of OPs, it is revealed that OP1 was not the franchisee of OP 2 & 3 after 27.09.2014 but even he kept on inducing the student without any basis and received the fee on behalf of OP 2 & 3 when the contract of OP1 ended with OP2 & 3, OP1 on false pretexts transferred the students at Preet Vihar, Delhi thereby imposing the false blames  on the student itself and also got the same written by them fraudulently. 
5. Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the parties.  Heard and perused the record.  The prayer of the complainant is to refund the fee of Rs.1,43,000/- along with interest or OPs be directed to get the course of the complainant completed.  Complaints relating to education-refund of fee with interest and compensation for loss of academic year against schools, colleges, universities and coaching institutions alleging deficiency in service or resort to unfair trade practices are very common.  In some cases, the question involved is refund of fee on various counts.    Shall the institute refund the same ?  These issues have been raised and considered by different courts/fora. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question as to whether education is a service and student is a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (i)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has held, in P.T. Koshy & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532/12, decided on 09.08.2012, as under :-

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC  159 + 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Education institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, 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 leave petition.  Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed”.

 

6.           In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.01.2014,  the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to the judgments in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, 2009 (8) Scc 483, Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and Jagmitter Sain Bhagat Vs. Director Health Services & Ors,      2013 (10) SCC 136, held that the student, under such circumstances, is not a ‘consumer’.
7.           In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant being a student is not a consumer and the OPs are not providing service within the meaning of section 2 (i)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint, therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to seek his grievance before appropriate forum or civil court as per law and can also seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute  1995(3) SCC 583.
8.           Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.           File be consigned to record room.
10.           Announced on 28.03.2016.    

 

( N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member