BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 17/2007 Filed on 11/7/2007

Dated: 27..02..2010

Complainant:

1. K.S. Suresh Babu, T.C.2/1050, Sudha, Pazhaya Road, Medical College Post, Thiruvananthapuram.

Addl. 2^nd complainant:

2. Umesh Suresh Babu of ...do.. ..do..

Opposite party:

TIME Institute, Archana Building, General Hospital Jn., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Pachalloor R. Jayakrishnan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 15..12..2009, the Forum on 27..02..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, 1^st complainant's son, the 2^nd complainant, joined opposite party's Entrance Coaching Course for IIT on 16/07/2005, that he had remitted Rs.6,500/- as advance payment and Rs. 500/- towards caution deposit, that though his son preferred a new weekened course as offered by the opposite party, that 2^nd complainant was admitted to one of the batches which started two months ago as such he could not understand anything as the base of the course was already covered by the ongoing batch, that though 1^st complainant complained about the poor quality of IIT entrance training, it did not evoke any positive response from the opposite party and hence 2^nd complainant stopped attending the course after attending nine classes and that 1^st complainant requested for refund of tuition fee, but opposite party did not respond positively. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to refund tuition fee of Rs. 6,500/- and caution deposit of Rs.500/-.

2. opposite party filed version contending that 1^st complainant's son Umesh Suresh joined their course clearly knowing that the batch had started earlier, that the total fee for the 2 year programme 2005 – 2007 was Rs. 29,000/- through installments, that the initial payment under the scheme was Rs. 8,000/- and opposite party allowed a lower initial payment from 2^nd complainant based on the 1^st complainant's request, that 2^nd complainant attended only 17 classes out of 38 classes of two hours each, that the student continued to be absent from the classes even after the parent was informed, that opposite party arranged extra classes for students like Umesh Suresh who had joined late, that those classes were conducted from July 25, 2005 to August 18, 2005. Umesh Suresh did not submit the regular assignments, which was informed to the 1^st complainant, and that the opposite party invited the complainant to talk to their faculty and he did come in and talk to their faculty. During November, 2005 complainant called the office and informed the opposite party about a letter he planned to send to opposite party regarding the refund of his course fee and opposite party received a letter dated 28/12/2005 to which opposite party replied promptly explaining that they are continuing the classes as per schedule, that in the letter opposite party indicated that Umesh Suresh has not attended the extra classes, that the student was provided opportunity for individual doubt clearing with individual faculty members, and that the complainant has also not responded to their alerts about Umesh's continuous absence from classes. Out of 2 evaluation tests for Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics Umesh attended only one and was completely absent from the second test for all subjects. Opposite party denies the argument that the quality of teaching was poor. It is submitted by opposite party that most of the faculty members have directly attended their National Training Programmes at Cochin/Hyderabad and quality of teaching is very good and that success in the entrance examination comes from dedicated work for two years. The complainant decided to quit without even trying and without even giving the opposite party a chance to improve his performance. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 7,000/-?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

4. In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed proof affidavit, and opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant.

5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, on 16/7/2005, 2^nd complainant joined in the Entrance Coaching Course for IIT conducted by the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that he had remitted Rs.6,500/- as advance payment and Rs. 500/- towards caution deposit. It is the specific case of the 1^st complainant that though his son preferred a new weekened course as offered by the opposite party, opposite party admitted him to one of the batches which started two months ago, thereby 2^nd complainant could not understand anything as the base of the course was already covered by the ongoing batch; that though 1^st complainant complained about the poor quality of IIT entrance training to the opposite party, it did not evoke any positive response from the opposite party and hence 2^nd complainant stopped attending the course after attending nine classes. Though 1^st complainant requested for refund of tuition fee, opposite party did not respond positively. Ext. P1 is the copy of the receipt dated 6/8/2005 for Rs.500/- towards +1, IIT issued by the opposite party in the name of the 2^nd complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 16/7/2005 for Rs.6,500/- towards fee for +1, IIT. In both Exts. P1 & P2 it is seen mentioned that “fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances” and “Inclusive of service Tax @ 10% and Education Cess @ 2%”. Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter dated 'nil', addressed to 1^st complainant by the opposite party stating that “fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances”. It is further stated in Ext. P3 that “Regarding your son we offered the following options for his improvement in his studies

1. Extra classes were arranged for late joined students.

2. Extra class only for Umesh was suggested.

3. He was given chances to clear his doubts.

4. His continuous absence in the class was reported to the parents regularly.

But there was no response from your side. We are continuing our classes as per schedule. Please look at making arrangements for your ward's continued attendance”. Opposite party resisted the complainant by submitting that the student joined the said course clearly knowing that the batch had started earlier, that the total fee for the said course was Rs. 29,000/-, that the initial payment under the said scheme was fixed at Rs.8,000/-, that a lower initial payment was allowed to 2^nd complainant on 1^st complainant's request. It is argued by the opposite party that 2^nd complainant attended only 17 classes out of 38 classes, that 1^st complainant was informed of the classes being missed by the 2^nd complainant, even then 1^st complainant did not take any special effort to ensure that the student attended the class nor did he come in and talk to opposite party's officer. It is submitted by the opposite party that despite their repeated calls to the complainants homes, 2^nd complainant continued to be absent from the classes and finally after a long period of absence, on September 25, 2005 1^st complainant indicated that he would like to withdraw his son from the course and on 28/12/2005 opposite party received a letter from the complainant regarding the refund of the course fee to which opposite party sent a reply by Ext. P3. Opposite party has denied the argument of the complainant that the quality of teaching was poor. In this context it is to be pointed out that originally, the complaint was filed by the 1^st complainant, and the actual complainant was impleaded as addl. 2^nd complainant on 17/01/2009, who did not file affidavit nor did he cross examine the opposite party to disprove the contention in the version as well as affidavit filed by the opposite party. It is the addl. 2^nd complainant who is competent to say about the quality of the said course given by the opposite party since the knowledge itself is subjective in nature. Evidently, it is the 2^nd complainant who voluntarily discontinued the course. There is nothing to ascertain the quality of training offered to the 2^nd complainant. It is further to be pointed out that the view of the opposite party that “fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances” is unilateral and against the principle of natural justice. If the quality of training is poor and against what is offered by the opposite party, ultimately it is the right of customer, who paid the fee partly, to challenge it and ask for refund of the same. If the complainant establishes that quality of training offered by opposite party is poor, normally he will be entitled for refund of his hard earned money. Admittedly, 2^nd complainant attended only 17 classes, out of 38 classes provided and according to opposite party fee for two year program is Rs.29,000/- that means the fee of Rs. 7,000/- already remitted by the complainant would cover barely for 6 months training, out of which complainant attended 17 classes (2 months) opposite party conducted the program as scheduled but 2^nd complainant voluntarily withdrew from the said program. Complainant failed to establish that the nature and quality of training given by opposite party is poor. As such nothing is there to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. At the same time the contention of the opposite party that the “fee once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances” would stand against the principle of natural justice. Taking into the consideration of totality of circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that it will be expedient and justice will be well met if a half of the amount (fee) remitted is refunded to 2^nd complainant.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.3,500/- to 2^nd complainant. Parties are directed to bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 27^th day of February, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 17/2007

APPENDIX

1. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : Suresh Babu

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Photocopy of the receipt dated 6/8/05 for Rs.500/-.

P2 : " dated 16/7/05 for Rs.6,500/-.

P3 : " letter addressed to complainant.

P4 : " of the advertisement.

P5 : " the transfer certificate

P6 : " certificate of National Mathematics Olympiad contest.

P7 : " certificate of National Science Olympiad contest.

P8 : " conduct certificate.

III. Opposite party's witness:

DW1 : K. Jayaraj

IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL

PRESIDENT