State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Fiitjee Limited vs Mayank Tiwari on 23 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 244/2014 Date of Institution 24.06.2014 Date of Decision 23/09/2014 M/s FIITJEE Limited, 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016 through its A.R. , Sh.Ashish Kr. Aggarwal. ----Appellant. V E R S U S Mayank Tiwari son of Sh.Ravi Shankar Tiwari, resident of House No.3516, First Floor, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh through his father and natural guardian Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari. ---Respondent. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh.Mukesh M.Goel, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Devinder Singh Soundh, Advocate for the respondent.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties as under:-
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under :-
i) To refund the balance fee after deducting the proportionate fee till the month of June 2013. The Opposite Parties shall also return the balance unused cheques to the complainant.
ii) To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 13. This
order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) &(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant took admission in the Pinnacle - Two Year Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE and paid total fee of Rs.1,00,918/- through two demand drafts. It was stated that the complainant started taking his coaching classes from 18.4.2013 but realized that the method of teaching was not upto the mark, as assured by the Opposite Parties at the time of admission. The complainant also reported the matter to the Opposite Parties, but they failed to do anything. Ultimately, being unsatisfied, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties for the refund of fee paid by him. The Opposite Parties assured to refund the amount within 7 days and accordingly the complainant stopped attending the classes from 8.6.2013. It was further stated that the complainant remained in the institute of the Opposite Parties for about 1 months, and of the 12 cheques given by his father at the time of admission, the Opposite Parties presented three cheques, totaling Rs.45,319/-, without his consent. Thus the Opposite Parties received the total amount of Rs.1,46,237/- from the complainant for the period of 1 months. It was further stated that another amount of Rs.30,570/- was also deposited by the complainant vide bill dated 23.3.2013 for the purpose of admission in the Mount Carmel School, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were requested to refund the total amount of Rs.1,76,737/- and return the remaining 10 cheques, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. In their written reply, the Opposite Parties admitted that the complainant took admission in their institute and deposited the fee of Rs.95,618/- and Rs.5,300/- by way of demand drafts. It was stated that the total fee for the course opted by the complainant, after deduction of the benefits of scholarship, was Rs.2,69,628/-, out of which the complainant deposited Rs.1,46,237/- only. It was denied that the standard of coaching were not upto the mark. It was further denied that the complainant or his father ever made any representation with regard to the coaching staff or the method of coaching. It was further denied that the complainant or his father were ever assured of refund of fee within 7 days. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.30,570/- was paid by the complainant to Mount Carmel School for the purpose of admission fee. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments have been denied, being false.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Authorized Representative of the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant-FIITJEE Ltd. submitted that before taking admission in two years Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE, the respondent and his father duly filled in the enrolment form, Annexure OP-II after understanding all its terms and conditions, wherein, it was specifically stated that fee once paid was not refundable at all, whatever the reasons may be nor was it adjustable towards any existing courses at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched courses nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student. He further submitted that the total fees for the course opted by the complainant after deduction of the benefits of scholarship was Rs.2,69,628/-, which included service tax, out of which the complainant deposited only Rs.1,46,237/- excluding service tax. He further submitted that the respondent left the course in the midway without any reason on 08.06.2013 and sought refund of fees. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the method of teaching was not upto the mark, as assured by the Opposite Parties at the time of admission and, as such, the complainant stopped attending the classes from 8.6.2013. He further submitted that the complainant remained in the institute of the Opposite Parties for about 1 months, qua which they received the total amount of Rs.1,46,237/-. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The relevant declaration/undertaking as contained in the enrolment form and duly signed by the respondent and his father read as under:-
8. I undertake that if I leave the institute midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to transfer of my father/mother/legal guardian/ill health of myself or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/course/engineering college etc. or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc. I or my father/mother/legal guardian shall not be entitled to refund of fees.
9. I/We undertake that once I (student) join the study centre /program offered by FIITJEE, I/We shall not be entitled to change the study centre/program nor will I be entitled to refund of fees.
However, if FIITJEE finds me competent/eligible for the higher course/program, it may consider my request for change of program subject to payment of difference of course/program fee.
10. In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be nor is adjustable towards any other existing courses at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student.
It is not the case of the complainant or his father that the said declaration and undertaking were not signed by them or the same were got signed from them, by the Opposite Parties, under duress or coercion etc. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he (student) cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the refund of fee on the plea that the method of teaching was not upto the mark as assured by the Opposite Parties. Instead, it was his responsibility to have ascertained the details with regard to the running of the course, by the Institute, before depositing the course fee for being enrolled. Almost similar view was taken by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.270/2006 Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.01.2010. Thus, the Opposite Parties by not refunding the fees were neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
11. Otherwise also, the respondent/complainant does fall within the definition of consumer in view of the principle of law, laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in P.T.Koshy &Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 22532/2012, decided on 09.08.2012, wherein it was held as under :-
In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
12.
The District Forum, thus, failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of case. Had the District Forum, appreciated the facts, circumstances and evidence, on record, in its proper perspective it would not have fallen into error in holding that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The order of the District Forum, thus, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs, and the order of the District Forum is set aside.
Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
23.09.2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/- [DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg