Order No.  28  dt.  01/08/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant took admission in o.p. institute on 27.7.10 for a three years course as a student in networking and infrastructure management. The complainant paid the fees accordingly. According to the rules and system of the institute of o.p. that the complainant supposed to have completed four semesters in two years and in the 3^rd year the complainant should complete two more semesters along with internship. The complainant completed 1^st semester and subsequent semesters had taken in haphazard manner by o.p. and o.p. took two semesters instead of four semesters during the period of two years. The complainant paid an amount ofRs.1,54,000/- for completion of the said course. The complainant made complaint to o.p. regarding irregular manner the semesters were taken and ultimately demanded the entire amount from o.p. but no action was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,54,000/- and compensation and cost.

            The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is not maintainable and there was no deficiency in service as per the C.P. Act. The complainant was very irregular in attending classes on account of alleged participation of weight lifting tournament and preparation thereof. The o.p. went out of its way to accommodate the complainant in different batches and at different times in all three semesters that the complainant started.

            The application fee and admission fee are not refundable.

            Refund of tuition fees are payable in full, if the student wishes to withdraw from a course / programme registered, at least two days prior to the schedule start date of the course / programme.

            Refund arising out of request will be refunded to the student within seven days of the request.

            No other fee is refundable.

            In view of the said fact it was stated that the complainant attended the classes in an irregular manner for which he will not be entitled to get refund of course fee. The complainant was provided with the course materials, laptop along with class room training and appeared in the examination of three semesters. The complainant himself was at fault and by suppressing the material fact the complainant filed this case. on the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant took admission in the institution of o.p.?
2. Whether the complainant attended the classes regularly and appeared in the semesters?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being attracted with the advertisement of o.p. took admission in the institution of o.p. and after taking the admission in the said institution the complainant attended classes and he appeared in 1^st semesters but subsequent semesters were not taken regularly for which the complainant suffered. The o.p. was requested by the complainant to make arrangement of taking semesters in regular manner but no attention was given on the request of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the money and other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant was very much irregular in attending classes and he remained absent in attending classes by showing that he was very much busy in weight lifting practice. The complainant was provided with the opportunity to appear in other semesters by adjusting with the subsequent batches, but he did not avail of the opportunity and remained absent and ultimately made false allegation regarding not taking of step by o.p. for conducting the semesters examination. Other students who got admission with him during the said period they successfully completed their course. It was further argued by ld. lawyer for o.p. that as per the brochure provided to the complainant at the time of admission the conditions were clearly mentioned regarding the refund of the fees. Only if the classes are attended by the students the fees cannot be refunded. It was also emphasized by ld. lawyer for o.p. that at the time of admission the course material was provided to the complainant along with laptop. The complainant made false allegation against the o.p. in order to suppress the fact that he himself remained absent from attending classes that made a false allegation against the o.p. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant took admission in o.p. institution and at the time of admission the complainant paid the usual fees as demanded by o.p. It is also an undisputed fact that at the time of admission the complainant was provided with the brochure of the said institution whereby the terms and conditions of the institution were clearly mentioned and the examination schedule, the percentage of attendance in class were also mentioned in the said brochure. It was also mentioned in the said document that the terms and conditions of refund of money whereby it was clearly stated that the amount cannot be refunded, only the tuition fee is refundable, if the student wishes to withdraw from a course / programme registered at least two days prior to the scheduled start date of the course / programme. Here in this case, the complainant did not inform the o.p. institution regarding his withdrawal from the said course before the commencement of the classes. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as, as per the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the judgment reported in 2017(2) CPR 516 (NC) that the subject of education does not come under category of service and provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986 were not applicable and the terms and conditions as mentioned in the brochure will hold ground [2012(2) CPR 156]. It is also relevant to mention here that o.p. is a private institute and o.p. arranges infrastructure and employees, teachers and other staff members on the assumption that it will be attempting a particular number of student in a given year, it will be put to a financial loss in case it has to refund the fee taken from a student who is unable to attend classes and continue his studies on account of his poor performance, unless the institute is able to fill up the seat which is vacated by the student who is unable to pursue the study on account of his poor performance in the examination. There is nothing on record to show that the seat which got vacated on account of the complainant’s absence was actually filled up by o.p. institution in the said academic year. Hence, a direction to the said institution to refund the amount received from the complainant as tuition fees, course fees, etc. would cause undue financial hardship to the institution. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.530/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.