Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/239/2018

Keshav Dua - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trimphant Institution of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Paramjit Batta

18 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/239/2018
Date of Institution	:	30/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	18/03/2019

 

Keshav Dua S/o Shri Sanjeev Dua, R/o H.No.3556, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.      Trimphant Institution of Management Education Pvt. Limited (T.I.M.E), 95-B, Park Lane, Secundrabad-500003, through its M.D/ Director/ Manager/ Auth. Signatory.

 

2.      Dreamworx Education (Franchisee of T.I.M.E), SCO 76-77, Second Floor, above HDFC Bank, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160018, through its Owner/Prop. Manager/ Auth. Signatory.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Dua, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant joined the OP-Institution for getting coaching for his admission in MBA and as a sequel thereto, deposited Rs.30,000/- vide receipts Annexure C-1 to C-3. The Complainant attended the classes with Opposite Parties only for 20 days (from 02.06.2017 to 20.06.2017) and thereafter, could not continue his coaching with the Opposite Parties, as he was required to undergo six months mandatory internship being part of his degree course he was pursuing at Thapar Institute. The Complainant accordingly, requested the Opposite Parties on 03.08.2017 to refund the balance fee, after deducting the charges for the period he attended the classes, but to no success. Eventually, a legal notice dated 21.02.2018 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but that too did not fructify. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. 
3.         Opposite Parties contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that rules & regulations forming part of application provides that fee once paid would not be refunded under any circumstances and the Complainant after understanding had undertaken to abide by the same. The Complainant is therefore estopped from taking advantage of his act and claim refund resulting into harassment of the answering Opposite Parties. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         In the present case, there is no doubt about the factum that the Complainant took admission in the Institute of the Opposite Parties, left the course for the purpose of completing his internship as a part of his regular degree course which he was pursuing at Thapar Institute, Patiala.
8.         Admittedly, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the Complainant attended the aforesaid course from 02.06.2017 to 20.06.2017 and left the same in between due to his unavoidable circumstances, meaning thereby the Complainant attended the course for a period of less than one month including the non-teaching days and holidays.
9.         As per the record, the Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Parties for the refund of the coaching fee, which the Opposite Parties charged in advance for full one year, but despite serving the legal notice the said fee has not been refunded, till date.
10.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that as per rules & regulations forming part of the application, fee once paid would not be refunded under any circumstances and therefore, the Complainant is estopped from taking advantage of his act of discontinuing the class and claiming refund.
11.         Perusal of the documents on record and the written version filed by the Opposite Parties makes it sufficiently clear that the Complainant attended the classes only for few days and thereafter, could not continue his coaching with the Opposite Parties as he was required to undergo six months mandatory internship being part of his regular degree course which he was pursuing at Thapar Institute, Patiala.
12.         The Complainant has specifically mentioned in Para No. 13 of his Complaint that he is a student and not doing any job anywhere and in this situation, it is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to refund the fee to the Complainant after deducting the fee of classes attended.
13.         In our opinion, it is unjust on the part of the Opposite Parties to collect the fee for the total period of the course from the Complainant. Also, it is crystal clear through the present Complaint that it was not the intention of the Complainant to discontinue the classes rather, due to his compelling circumstances only he discontinued the course. In our concerted opinion, the Opposite Parties have no right to retain the remaining fee on this ground only that fee once paid is not refundable, despite the fact the Complainant had made a specific request for refund of his fees time & again.   
14.         Hence, the act of Opposite Parties in retaining the tuition fee, which they arbitrarily charged in advance for the full course, is unfair trade practice, which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. We are of the opinion that the insertion of the non-refundable fee clause in the admission form itself amounts to indulgence in unfair trade practice, especially in the unavoidable circumstances. Hence, this clause cannot debar the Complainant from claiming the proportionate fee.
15.         This is inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, which forced a student to request the Opposite Parties, time & again, for his genuine request of the refund of the proportionate fee and then, coming to this Court and indulging in the present unnecessary litigation, resulting in wastage of time, energy and of course, of money as well.   
16.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. To refund the entire fee deposited by the Complainant after deducting the proportionate fee from 02.06.2017 to 20.06.2017.
2.        To pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and physical & mental harassment caused to him.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

17.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
18/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”