Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/253/2023

MASTER HARMANJOT - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNACADEMY INSTITUTE - Opp.Party(s)

NEHA AHLUWALIA

23 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	253 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	01.05.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	23.09.2024

 

 

 

 

Master Harmanjot s/o Sh.Surinder Kumar, aged 13 years, R/o House No.237, Village Palsora, Sector 55, UT Chandigarh, Phone No.9463951402 email address:

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.  Unacademy Institute, SCO 116/117, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160022 through its General Manager/Director/Authorized Signatory, Phone No.8585858585 email address: 2.  Avanse Financial Services, Unit No.2 & 3, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.143, City Emporium, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh-160002 through its General Manager/Director/Authorized Signatory, Phone No.0172-4950400.

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA,       MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Sh.Surinder Kumar, Guardian/Father of Complainant.

None for OP No.1 (defence of OP No.1 already struck off).

OP No.2 ex-parte.

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he took admission on 24.01.2023 with OP No.1 Institute for Foundation Course for all major subjects for Class 9^th and 10^th for the session 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. It is submitted that loan was arranged by OP No.1 through OP No.2 as complainant’s father could not afford tuition fee in one go. The total fees for both the sessions was Rs.52,000/- which was to be given in 6 installments. The first installment of Rs.8667/- was paid through G.Pay on 24.01.2023 and 2^nd installment of Rs.8667/- was paid on 04.03.2023. It is submitted that complainant was promised by OP No.1 that his doubts from the syllabus of Class 8^th, if any, will also be cleared as the fee was paid prior.  

    It is submitted that after the admission, Maths tutor Mr.Pawan took the complainant’s test and said that complainant is weak in Maths basics and refused to teach him the syllabus of Class 9^th by saying that one more different home tuition should be kept for him so that he can clear Maths Basics of his Class 8^th first. It is submitted that when the complainant’s father told that he could not afford the different home tuition and doubts were to be cleared by OP No.1 as it was promised, but the teacher of OP No.1 Institute said that he cannot teach the basics and denied to teach the complainant. The complainant’s father emailed the customer care of OP No.1 on 31.03.2023 and 04.04.2023 and requested them for the cancellation of registration and foreclosure of loan and also to refund his two installments but he received a reply from OP No.1 on 04.04.2023 claiming that    the ‘Institute has Zero Refund Policy’. The complainant’s father also visited the Branch Office of OP No.1 on 01.04.2023 and gave an application for the same with the request to resolve the matter, but all in vain. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of OP No.1 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the OP to refund fees of Rs.17,334/- along with interest and compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses. 

2]       Since OP No.1 filed its written version after the stipulated period of 45 days, as provided under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC 86 and M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Manisha Bhargava & Anr., II (2021) SLT 201, its defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 24.08.2023.

3]      The OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence, OP No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2023.    

4]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

5]       We have heard the guardian/father of the complainant and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       The perusal of the receipts (Annexure C-1) on record shows that the payment of Rs.17,334/- has been made by complainant to OP No.1 and the said payment was made for Foundation Course for all major subjects for Class 9^th & 10^th at OP No.1 Institute. However, no classes were ever attended by the complainant as OP No.1 refused to teach him.   

7]       It is observed that the when the payment was made to the OP No.1, then it was for the OP No.1 to provide the assured services in all respect or refund the amount. When the complainant has not availed the coaching services from the very inception of the course then he is entitled to refund as no services have been provided to him by OP No.1. In the present complaint, OP No.1 has neither rendered any services to the consumer nor refunded his amount which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Further, the OP No.1 has failed to rebut the averments made in the complaint by filing written version in prescribed time nor lead any cogent evidence, which shows that OP No.1 has nothing to say. OP No.2 despite being duly served, failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant have gone unrebutted & un-controverted.

8]       By not refunding the fee to the complainant, the OP No.1 has also acted in defiance of the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)”, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

“5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’.

6.   The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal.

7.   This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extenso.

“It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.

The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/ Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

 

Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.

                 This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.”

8.   Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.”

 

9]       The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Fiit Jee Ltd. Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath, 2012(1) CPJ 194 while considering the revision petition on identical facts, as involved in the present complaint, has categorically held that Fiit Jee Ltd. could not charge full advance fee for Two years and held the complainant entitled for receipt of refund of fee taken in advance from him by FIIT JEE. It is further held by the Hon’ble National Commission that such cases are consumer disputes within the meaning under the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Jai Preet Singh Kaushal Vs. FIIT JEE Ltd., decided on 14.11.2017 – 2018(I) CON LT 536 relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, has also held the charging of fee full in advance for two years course as illegal.

10]      In the light of the above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OP No.1. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with directions to the OP No.1 to refund the deposited fee of Rs.17,334/-(Rs.8667/- + Rs.8667/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of its actual realization. The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.    

        The above said order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.09.2024                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

as