DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.72/2008
Sh. Shashank Baurai,
Through his guardian
Sh. Arun Prakash
Village Garhwal Vihar, Jaspur Khurd,
Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttrakhand
Also at:
AG 1/43D, Vikas Puri
New Delhi-110018 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Wright Brothers Institute of Aeronautical
Engineering, Research & Management
7, Neb Sarai Road, 395/25
Anupam Apartments, IGNOU Road,
Safdarjang, New Delhi-110030
2. Dr. Devender Kumar Sharma
Chairman
Wright Brothers Institute of Aeronautical
Engineering, Research & Management
7, Neb Sarai Road, 395/25
Anupam Apartments, IGNOU Road,
Safdarjang, New Delhi-110030 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 01.02.08 Date of Order : 17.09.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he saw lucrative advertisement regarding admission of OP. The OP advised him on 27.06.07 to send Rs.300/- for the application form. The admission form was received on 27.06.07. He deposited Rs.10,000/- vide draft No. 706848 dated 07.07.07. Another draft No.706888 dated 09.07.07 for Rs.15,000/- was sent to the OP. On 08.08.07, the OP compelled him to agree to the terms and conditions and that he would not ask for return of the amount paid by him. The official of OP stated that this affidavit was only for formalities. He deposited a sum of Rs.65428/- by DD No.707028 dated 16.08.07 and the OPs bifurcated the said amount in different heads and issued two receipts in this regard - first receipt No.29 for a sum of Rs.24720/- on account of annual fees and Rs.33708/- on account of hostel fees and receipt for Rs.6,000/- dated 17.08.07 was issued against the registration and other charges. Thus, he had paid a sum of Rs. 90428/- and Rs.300/- for prospectus to the OP towards the admission in aeronautical engineering course. After the admission, the Complainant came to the institute for study. When he reached the hostel he was given a room with sharing with other student. The condition of the hostel was not as per the promises made by the OPs. It was far away from the institute without any proper means of communication. It was not possible for any student much less for the complainant to stay in the hostel considering the poor and unhygienic condition in the hostel. Moreover, the OPs were not even ready to provide all other facilities as per their promises like good teaching environment, teaching faculty etc. He was left with no other option but to withdraw the admission but he was not refunded the deposited amount by the OPs even despite of several requests. He sent a legal notice on 26.11.07. He received a reply dated 13.12.07 from the OPs stating false facts and raising untenable grounds. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-
Direct the OPs to refund the deposited money of Rs.89928/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the amount by the Complainant with the OPs and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for legal and other charges.
OPs in the written statement have stated that they had given the advertisement in more than one newspaper. The advertisements were brief one and giving the brief information to the desirous students who wished to take the qualifying engineering examination conducted by the Aeronautical Society of the India and Institution of Electronics and Telecommunications Engineers which are recognized by the Department of Education, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. The Complainant applied for the prospectus on a payment of Rs.300/- by draft. In these document, they had disclosed all the facts pertaining to the fees structure (with hostel) and other conditions to be satisfied for taking admission for training with the OPs. The total fees of Rs. 89928/- was charged which included first year fees only. This amount included the service tax of Rs.8188/- which was later paid to the Govt. of India as per the law. All these receipts were duly issued to the Complainant and the Complainant after gaining complete knowledge and understanding took the admission by submitting the fees subject to the agreed terms and conditions disclosed explicitly. One of the explicit conditions was that fee once paid is neither refunded nor adjustable under any circumstances. The tuition fees and other hostel fees must be paid annually for respective session as per notice issued by the institute. The student opting for hostel had to compulsorily board for two consecutive semesters. It is submitted that “by not opting to continue with the opposite party a loss in terms of the annual fee which the opposite party would have received otherwise as now seat rendered vacant cannot be filled as admissions are closed”. Thus, the Complainant is liable to pay for the loss of fees and agony and harassment. The breakup of fees paid is as follows:
- Admission fee = Rs.20,000/- that includes Rs.14240/- as Enrollment fee, Rs.1760/- as Service Tax on Enrollment Fee @ 12.36% as per the rule of Govt. of India and Rs.4,000/- as the security deposit, which is refundable.
- Annual fee = Rs.22000/- (non refundable)
Rs.2720/- is the service tax on annual fee @ 12.36%
- Hostel fee = Rs.30000/- (non refundable)
Rs.3708/- is the service tax on Hostel fee @ 12.36%
- Hostel Security Deposit = Rs.5000/- (Refundable)
- Registration fee = Rs.6000/- (One Time Payment)
- I-card, Tie, T-shirt, Cap, Badge, Bag =Rs.500/-.
OP has further stated that out of the fees paid the payment made against the enrolment fee, security deposit and registration fee is onetime payment. The above breakups of the fee are structured whereby the quality of education is not compromised while maintaining the student teacher ratio and to avoid the large crowd and therefore the admissions are offered on first come first basis and once admission is taken the seats are blocked and no further admission can be taken against the vacancy of the seats in case it arises if any one decides to leave. The fees are made non-refundable except hostel security deposit of Rs.5000/- as well as institute security deposit of Rs.4,000/- which is refundable and also the registration fees of Rs.6,000/-, totalling of Rs.15,000/- and OPs are ready to refund the said amount. The OPs have further stated that in compliance of the directions of this Forum on 02.04.08 OPs invited the Complainant for mutual conversation and to arrive at a settlement but the Complainant has not responded to the letter sent by the OPs on 23.04.08. The complainant deposited the annual fees, hostel fee and registration fee on 17.08.07 i.e. after more than one month of taking admission on 11-7-2007 and also after the admissions were closed. The course commenced on 20.08.07 and thereafter the student did not turn up and even did not write any letter and only a legal notice dated 26.11.07 was sent which clearly shows about the afterthought of the student and his natural guardian as he has changed his mind by imagining deficiency in service. It is pleaded that complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP.
Complainant’s father (AR) has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Mrs. Krishna Sharma, Proprietor of OP-1 has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had deposited Rs.89928/- with the OPs. It is well known practice that many private education institutions are collecting the part of the fees in cash or through demand draft. However, here, the Complainant signed the terms and conditions wherein it is mentioned that in case he leaves the institution, then the fees will be forfeited (copy annexure-A for the purpose of identification). The Complainant had not attended the classes but the OPs were ready to make the refund of fees of Rs.15,000/- only.
Three points which arise for consideration are, (1) whether the OPs were deficient in rendering services, (2) whether the complainant had furnished the undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions of the admission particularly with regard to the non-refund of fee without any coercive tactics or by fraudulent means and thirdly whether the OPs have filled up vacancy caused by vacating the course in mid term by the complainant?
Having carefully examined the material placed before us we find that the complainant has himself stated in the complaint that he was not satisfied with the hostel condition and other facilities and the teaching environment promised by the OP were not provided. We also do not find any evidence to suggest that the complainant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the undertaking or he signed the undertaking under protest wherein one of the conditions is unequivocally stipulated that “I shall not have any right to claim/refund the deposited fee from”.
In the judgment of National Commission dated 7.4.16 in the matter of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Nitish Aggarwal in RP No. 3673 of 2013 wherein ratio-decidendi of the same Commission in the matter of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni, RP No. 2054 of 2013 was applied it was held that “if a student leaves the course midway he would not be entitled to refund of money provided the seat has remained vacant”.
The same law applies to the present case. According to the OPs, seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant which caused loss to them. The complainant has not lead any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, we are inclined to believe that the seat vacated by the complainant had remained vacant.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaint has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to receive Rs. 15,000/- from the OPs by moving an application in this behalf.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 17.09.2016
Case No. 72/08
17.09.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
