State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nirmala Kumar Biswal vs Aarti Prajay Salve on 7 November, 2022
1 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 &
1150/2019
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :15.06.2019
Date of order :07.11.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1105 to 1115 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 475 to 481, 508, 596/2018, 35/19,
217/2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD
Nirmal Kumar Biswal,
R/o 101, First floor, Sagar Trade Centre,
Opp.Akashwani, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. IN A 1105/2019
Sau.Aarti Prajay Salve,
R/o Amruit Sai Plaza, Flat No.E-9,
Railway Station, Silkmill Colony,
Aurangabad.
2. IN A 1106/2019
Ganesh Trimbak Kuber,
R/o House No.MIG 25, Siddivinayak Chowk,
Parijatnagar, Mahada Colony,
Tisgaon, Aurangabad.
3. IN A 1107/2019
Sau.Sushila Vijay Bansode,
R/o Shahnurmiya Dargah,
In front of RJ International,
Saral Apartment, Aurangabad.
4. IN A 1108/2019
Sau.Kusum Sainath Jadhav,
R/o B-26, Devgiri Valley,
Mitmita, Aurangabad.
2 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 &
1150/2019
5. IN A 1109/2019
i) Shaikh Sattar Shaikh Ahmed,
ii) Shaikh Ashfaq Shaikh Sattar,
All R/o Gut No.35, Plot No.5/P,
Near Adarsh Lawns, Shahanagar,
Beed Bypass Road, Aurangabad.
6. IN A 1110/2019
Dnyaneshwar Punjaji Nawle,
R/o RH House No.4, Gut No.92,
Sailba Enclave Itkheda, Paithan Road,
Near Nath Seeds, Aurangabad.
7. IN A 1111/2019
Shaikh Abdul Rauf Kasam,
R/o House No.1623, Lane No.21,
New Baijipura, Near Aman Masjid,
Aurangabad.
8. IN A 1112/2019
Prabhu Vishwanath Swami,
R/o Plot 49, Adarsh Colony,
Near Wadkar Corner,
Aurangabad.
9. IN A 1113/2019
R/o Sarvadny Apartment, Flat No.05,
Girija Housing Society, Pundlik Nagar Road,
Garkheda, Aurangabad.
10. IN A 1114/2019
Bhagwan Punju Patil,
R/o C Building A-4 Tirupati Vihar Garkheda,
Bhagat Singh Nagar ,
Aurangabad.
11. IN A 1115/2019
Hari Rambhau Warade,
R/o Plot 58, Survey No.15,
Rajebhaji Colony, Jalgaon Road,
3 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 &
1150/2019
Jadhavwadi, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing :25.06.2019
Date of order :07.11.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1132 to 1141 & 1150 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 475 to 481, 508, 596/2018, 35/19,
217/2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD
1. IN A 1132/2019
Bhagwan Punju Patil,
R/o 'Complainant' Building, A-4, Tirupati Vihar,
Garkheda, Bhagatsing Nagar,
Aurangabad.
2. IN A 1133/2019
Sau.Arti Prajay Salve,
For herself and for Ku.Snehal Prajay Salve,
R/o Amruit Sai Plaza, Flat No. E-9,
Railway Station, Silkmill Colony,
Aurangabad.
3. IN A 1134/2019
Ganesh Trimbak Kuber,
R/o House No. MIG-25, Siddhivinayak Chauk,
Parijat Nagar, Mhada Colony,
Tisgaon, Aurangabad.
4. IN A 1135/2019
Sau.Sushila Vijay Bansode,
For herself and for Ku.Pratiksha Vijay Bansode,
R/o Shahnurmiya Dargah,
In front of RJ international,
Saral Apartment, Aurangabad.
5. IN A 1136/2019
Sau.Kusum Sainath Jadhav,
R/o B-36, Devgiri Vally, Mitmita,
4 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 &
1150/2019
Aurangabad.
6. IN A 1137/2019
i) Shaikh Sattar Shaikh Ahmed,
For himself & for Ku.Shaikh Muskan Shaikh Sattar,
ii) Shaikh Ashfaq Shaikh Sattar,
R/o Gut No.35, Plot No.5/P,
Near Adarsh Lawns, Shahnagar,
Beed Bypass Rd., Aurangabad.
7. IN A 1138/2019
Dnyaneshwar Punjaji Nawale,
For himself & for Ku.Pranali Dnyaneshwar Nawale,
R/o RH No.4, Gut No.92, Sailabh Enclave Itkheda,
Paithan Road, Near Nath Seeds,
Aurangabad.
8. IN A 1139/2019
Shaikh Abdul Rauf Kasam,
R/o H.No.1623, Lane No.21, New Baijipura,
Near Aman Masjid,
Aurangabad.
9. IN A 1140/2019
Prabhu Vishwanath Swami,
R/o Plot No.49, Adarsh Colony,
Garkheda Parisar,
Near Wadkar Corner,
Aurangabad.
10. IN A 1141/2019
Anil Radhakrishna Kakade,
R/o Sarvadnya Apartment, Flat No.5,
Girija Housing Society, Pundliknagar Road,
Garkheda, Aurangabad.
11. IN A 1150/2019
Pranav Hari Warade(Son),
Through his legal Guardian,
Hari Rambhau Warade(father),
R/o Raje Sambhaji Colony, Plot No.58,
5 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 &
1150/2019
Surve No.15, Jadhavwadi,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Nirmal Kumar Biswal,
Proprietor / Authorised person
For Gurukul Classes,
R/o. Sagar Trade Centre,
Opp.Akashwani, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT.
CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.G.Ladda for appellant in 1105 to 1115/2019,
Adv.P.R.Nangare for appellant in A/1132 to 1141/2019,
Adv.S.M.Karande for appellant in A-1150/2019.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07/11/2022) Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
1) Being aggrieved by judgments and orders of District Forum Aurangabad in C.C.No.475/18 to 481/18, 508/18, 596/18, 35/19 , 217/19 all dated 09/05/19, the appellant/org.opponent Nirmal Kumar Biswal has filed the appeals bearing No.1105/19 to 1115/19. While appellants/org.complainants have also filed appeals bearing Nos. 1132/19 to 1141/19 & 1150/19 against impugned judgment and orders in respective complaints.
6 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 (2) The appellant Nirmal Kumar Biswal in A/1105/19 to 1115/19 is the opponent in all the consumer complaints and the respondents are the complainants in the consumer complaints .
The appellants in A/1132/19 to 1141/19 & 1150/19 are the org.complainants and Nirmal Kumar Biswal respondent is the opponent. The parties are herein after referred to as complainants and opponent as per their status in the complaint/s. The Dist.Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
(3) Being the nature of all these complaints similar and also order of District Forum in same line awarding relief in all these complaints, we have therefore clubbed all these appeals together for the sake of convenience and all the appeals are decided by this common order.
(4) Without mentioning it all the cases of the complaints at a time , we would like to put one of the case of the complainants i.e. in C.C.No.475/2018 in detail for understanding of the common issue in all the matters.
(i) It is the case of complainant Arati Prajay Salwe in C.C.No.475/18 that her daughter Snehal passed 10th standard examination and secured 94% marks. She is desirous of going for medical course. And for that basic knowledge of the subjects required for scoring best in NEET examination. The selection of better class is also necessary for preparation 7 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 of NEET examination. The opponent is running private classes in the name of Gurukul classes Aurangabad city and in the State. The complainant came across the advertisement released by the opponent for admission to the coaching classes. The complainant along with her daughter visited the office of the opponent classes. The representative of the opponent showed the classrooms and infrastructure available at the institute. The opponent assured the complainant for providing best education and basic knowledge of every subject with personal attention to the student. The total fees of Rs 1.0 lakh was informed to the complainant payable in four equal installments. The complainant took admission to the coaching classes and paid this amount in 4 equal installments on 10th June 2017, 10th October 2017,19th January 2018 and 24th April 2018. Initially, the classes were conducted properly for 5-6 months. However ,the opponent later changed the teaching staff which affected the studies of complainant's daughter. This was informed to complainant by her daughter. Other students also informed this to their parents. The parents met the opponent and requested to complete the syllabus as per schedule. The opponent promised to look into the matter and complete the syllabus. However, even after 2 -3 months, same thing happened and there was only 32 percent syllabus completed till the date of admission to 12th standard. The complainant's daughter was threatened for not to disclose anything about mismanagement of the classes to the parents. When complainant and other parents visited opponent, the behaviour of the opponent was also adamant with the parents and the complainant. Therefore, the complement and her daughter decided 8 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 to leave the classes and to join other classes and therefore requested the opponent to refund the fees. Initially the opponent agreed to refund the fees, however, later avoided .The complainant issued legal notice to the opponent and asked to refund the fees. However, the opponent replied to the notice and denied to refund the fees .
(ii) The opponent is charging different fees for students considering the paying capacity of the parents. The opponent is concentrating on JEE examinations for Engineering admissions. Therefore most of the students left the opponent's classes . However, only few students approached to court for refund of fees. There is also dispute between the opponent and their teaching staff. The opponent has already lodged complaint against the two teachers. Nearly 110 students have left classes.
(iii) The daughter of complainant is covering under the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986 . The complainant filed the complaint as the daughter is minor one.
(iv) The complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opponent classes for refund of tuition fees of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.25000/- towards mental agony, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards educational losses Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards notice charges.
(II) For similar grievance the other complainants have filed the complaints in C.C.No.476/18, 477/18, 478/18, 479/18, 480/18, 481/18, 508/18, 596/18, 35/19 & 217/19 against the same opponent Nirmal Kumar Biswal Prop.Gurukul Classes, Aurangabad. For the sake of convenience we have 9 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 summarised the details as to name of complainant, fees paid and compensation sought is as below.
Table
Sr. Name of CC No., Fees Fees Fees claim Forum awarded
No. complainants Appeal told payable paid
Fees Agony Education Litigatio Notice Tuitio Notice
of opp. (Rs.i decided (Rs.in
(Rs.in (Rs.in loss n (Rs.in n fees (Rs.in
& n (Rs.in lakh) thousan
lakh) lakh) (Rs.in (Rs.in (Rs.in thousand)
appeal lakh) lakh) d)
lakh) lakh) lakh)
of
comp.
No.
1. Aarti Prajay 475/18, 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 1.0 3,000
Salve 1105/19
1133/19
2. Ganesh 476/18, 1.84 1.0 0.95 0.95 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 1.0 3,000
Trimbak 1106/19
Kuber 1134/19
3. Sushila 477/18, 1.50 1.10 0.80 0.80 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.80 3,000
Vijay 1107/19
Bansode 1135/19
4. Kusum 478/18, 1.0 1.0 0.95 0.95 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.95 3,000
Sainath 1108/19
Jadhav 1136/19
5. Shaikh 479/18, 1.50 1.0 0.70 1.40 0.50 1.0 0.15 3,000 1.4 3,000
Sattar 1109/19
Shaikh 1137/19
Ashfaq
6. Dnyaneshwar 480/18, 1.0 1.0 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.75 3,000
Navale 1110/19
1138/19
7. Shaikh 481/18 1.0 1.0 0.70 0.70 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.70 3,000
Abdul Raut 1111/19
1139/19
8. Prabhu 508/18, 1.5 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.90 3,000
Vishwanath 1112/19
Swami 1140/19
9. Anil 596/18, 1.5 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.0 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.80 3,000
Radhkrishna 1113/19
Kakde 1141/19
10. Bhagwan 35/19, 1.84 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.50 0.15 3,000 0.90 3,000
Punja Patil 1114/19
1142/19
11. Hari 217/19, 2.24 1.10 1.0 1.0 - - - - 1.10 3,000
Rambhau 1115/19
Warade 1150/19
(5) The opponent filed written statements in all these complaints in
similar line and denied the adverse allegation. It is contended that the
complaints are not maintainable and the complainants suppressed material facts and have filed the consumer complaints with ill intention to defame the opponent with intention of blackmailing. It is contended that, the 10 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 complaints are filed against the person who is not proprietor of the opponent classes. The allegations as to the running of class properly for first 5-6 months and mis-management thereafter, change of the teachers ,completion of 32% syllabus only till admission of 12th class, threatening to the student, adamant behaviour of the opponent are denied. The allegation of taking different fees from students considering the paying capacity of the parent is also denied. It is denied that complainants are not coming within the definition of 'consumer' and complainants have no cause of action. It is contended that the complainant agreed to terms and conditions of the admission. The term No.1 is agreed by the complainant which is stating that, "I agree that the fees once paid shall be refunded only within 3 days of admission date, deducting service tax, study material charges ,stationery charges ,after that admission could not be cancelled and fees will not be refundable or transferable on other name in any circumstances". It is further contended that, the opponent is registered organisation under Intellectual Properties Act. Opponent is running the classes across the state and thousands of students are studying in the classes. The students are admitted in the classes after passing the entrance examination. And as per Rule there is no refund of fees after one month of starting of the classes. This is known to the complainant/s and has/have agreed to the terms and conditions and signed the admission form/s. The opponent appointed expert teachers for the classes. Complainant/s have attended the classes for 1 year and therefore not entitled for the refund of fees. By the end of one year , the 11 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 syllabus is almost completed. After attending the classes almost for one year regularly, complainant/s has/have filed the frivolous complaints, in spite of completion of almost all the syllabus. The opponent classes is not responsible for the poor understanding capacity of the ward of the complainant/complainant students. Some parents tried to defend the classes on MCN channel. However, the said channel further broadcasted the true facts after verifying. Some of the complainants/students have complained to police with intention of defaming the opponent Institute. The opponent never attempted to intimidate the students. Opponent has already fixed C.C.TV in the campus. The opponent requested to dismiss the complaints.
(6) The District Forum decided the consumer complaint No.475/2018 and directed the opponent to refund fees of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainant. The District Forum also directed to refund the fees paid in other complaints also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation. In other cases, the District Forum awarded compensation as shown in chart/table in sub- para II of para 4.
(7) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgements, the opponent filed the appeals on the following grounds. Complainants are not falling within the definition of consumer. The teaching job is not covered within the definition of 2d (ii) of Consumer Protection Act. The student taking education in 12 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 coaching classes stand on equal footing with student learning in a school/college/university. The work of teaching and learning cannot be equated to of services. Similarly learning by a student cannot be termed to be having of any services. The amount of fees paid cannot be termed to be a consideration. The institute has to spend for instalment of laboratories, availability of computers and scientific equipment for practical, purchase of chemicals and other consumable for practical, stationery for notes. The institute has to spend on salaries of the teachers. Success of a student is dependent on his own mental ability to understand the subject and his readiness for hard work. The complainants have taken learning for a whole year for 11th std. and left the institute when succeeded to step in 12th standard. There was no evidence laid to justify the allegations carved out in the complaint. Nearly 140 students were preparing for Neet exam and 600 were preparing for JEE exam. Many students of the institute have succeeded in JEE and NEET examination. The complainant have filed the complaints at the behest of two teachers who left the institute to start their own classes. The District Forum did not consider the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant while seeking the admission. It is not the case of complainnat that within 3 days of taking admission the complainant left the coaching class and thereby entitled for refund of the fees. The complainant filed the complaint against the appellant who is not proprietor or director of the Gurukul Coaching Classes. The complaint filed before the forum was not maintainable. Order of District Forum is not judiciously reasoned one.
13 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 (8) On the other side, complainants have also filed the appeals bearing No.1132/19 to 1141/19 and 1150/19 against the impugned orders in respective consumer complaint mainly on the grounds that the District Forum not granted interest though the order is in the form of money decree. The District Forum has also not directed to refund the amount within 30 days and not directed to pay the interest of 15% on the amounts awarded. District Forum not awarded compensation for mental agony and educational loss. The District Forum has not recorded its finding for not awarding mental agony and educational loss.
(9) Advocate Ladda appeared for the opponent in all appeals. Advocate Nangare appeared for original complainants in all the appeals except appeal No.1150/2019. Advocate Karande appeared for original complainant m appeal No.1150/19.
(10) Following points arose for our consideration after submission of the parties. We have noted and answered them for the reasons to follow.
(i) Whether the complainant established
deficiency in service on the part of
opponent coaching classes? ...Partly affirmative
(ii) Whether there requires interference
in the order of District Forum ? ...In affirmative
(iii) What order? ...As per final
order.
14 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 &
1150/2019
REASONING
POINTS 1,2 & 3:
(11)(i) The learned advocate Shri Ladda argued for the opponent in the line of appeal memo that complainant is not falling within the definition of consumer. The teaching job is not covered within the definition of 2d (ii) of Consumer Protection Act. The student taking education in coaching classes stand on equal footing with student learning in a school/college/university. The work of learning and teaching cannot be equated to of services. The amount of fees paid cannot be termed to be a consideration. The institute has to spend for establishment of laboratories ,availability of computers and scientific equipment for practical, purchase of chemicals and other consumable for practical, stationery for notes. The institute has to spend on salaries of the teachers. Success of a student is dependent on his own mental ability to understand and readiness for hard work. The complainants have taken learning for a whole year for 11th std. and left the institute when succeeded to step in 12th standard. There was no evidence laid to justify the allegations carved out in the complaint. Nearly 140 students were preparing for Neet exam and 600 were preparing for JEE exam. Many students of the institute have succeeded in JEE and NEET examination. The complainant has filed the complaint at the behest of two teachers who left the institute to start their own classes. The District Forum did not consider the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant while seeking the admission. It is not the case of complainant that within 3 days of taking admission the 15 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 complainant left the coaching class and thereby entitled for refund of the fees. The complainant filed the complaint against the appellant who is not proprietor or director of the Gurukul Coaching Classes. The complaint filed before the forum was not maintainable. Order of District Forum is not judiciously reasoned one. He also submitted the documents/copies of news paper cuttings submitting on success of students in examinations . 11(ii) There is no merit in complaints. complainants are not consumers of the opponent classes and opponent classes are not the service provider. The opponent classes are engaged in teaching business. It is a settled law that the education is not the commodity and the institute giving the education is not service provider. The appeals of the complainants deserve to be dismissed on the law point only.
11(iii) The learned advocate relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University -Vs- Surjeet Kaur , Civil Appeal No.6907/2008 decided on 19th July 2010, reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 159 to support his contention that the education is not a commodity and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the student and the opponent Institute.
Also, he contended that it is not justified to refund the fees in view of the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Sumit Upadhyay -Vs- Chandanvan Public School, Revision petition No.2180/2019 decided on 18th Feb.2020, reported in 2020 SCC Online NCRDC 647 , it is observed that, 16 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 "The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of fees may be taken as fixation of fees rather than refund of fees. A case of refund could not be affected by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it does not relate to the academic activities of the institutions. From this point of view in this case the opposite party has charged fees only for six months. The complainant has stated that as per T.C. given student has attended classes only for 19 days, though actually the student never attended classes as there was no science teacher. In fact, if the complainant had not attended the class even for one month, the opposite party is not entitled to retain the total fees charged". (12) Ld. Advocate Nangre argued for the complainants that, though the opponent is keeping reliance upon the terms and conditions of the admission that the fees once paid shall be refunded only within 3 days of admission contending that the complainant/s have taken education for almost 1 year for 11th standard and therefore not entitled for refund of the fees. However, the District Forum has decided the complaints rightly by observing that these are one sided terms and conditions and are not binding on the complainants. The Id. advocate further argued that it is pertinent to note here that signing of documents at the time of taking admission by the complainant/parents does not mean that all the rights are given to the opponent. Also, it cannot be ignored that it is the duty of opponent to provide services to their consumers as assured at the time of taking admission and the opponent has failed to render proper services to the complainant/s. 0nly 32% syllabus was covered, the teachers were changed 17 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 which affected badly on the studies of students. There was mis- management in the institute. The institute filed police case against the two teachers. That also made chaos in the institute . He further argued that, the District Forum not granted interest though the order is in the form of money decree. The District Forum has also not directed to refund the amount within 30 days and not directed to pay the interest of 15% on the amounts awarded. District Forum not awarded compensation for mental agony and educational loss. The District Forum has not recorded its finding for not awarding mental agony and educational loss.
(13) Though it is argued by the Advocate of the opponent that education is not the commodity and imparting education is not service keeping reliance on Maharshi Dayanand University's case, cited Supra. However, this law is applicable to institutes like schools, University which are governed under the particular statute. In consumer case, Manu Solanki and others versus Vinayak Mission University and other cases decided on 20th January 2020 (c.c 261 of 2012 and other cases), the Hon'ble National Commission held in para 51 as below "In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the institute rendering education including vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre admission as well as post admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra- curricular activities ,swimming, sport etc except coaching institutes ,will therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986".
18 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 (14) Though it is alleged by the complainant that the opponent coaching classes did not give proper services to the complainant. 0nly 32% syllabus was covered. The teachers were changed which affected the concentration of the complainant. There was mis-management in the institute. The institute filed Police case against the two teachers. However, no evidence is on record to prove this allegation that only 32% syllabus which was covered and the change of teachers affected the teaching and that affected the complainant to prosecute the studies. It reveals that the complainant has not filed affidavits of other students to support the allegation. However, the complainant has filed a letter addressed to Police Commissioner regarding not completing the syllabus fully and completing the syllabus to 32% only, change of teachers . Apparently, this is substantial evidence establishing that there is grievance of some of the students on these points. Also the opponent has not filed any evidence that what was the extent of syllabus which was assured to be completed and what was completed till the complainant students left the classes alleging deficiency in service . No attendance sheet of students and affidavits of teacher is on record supporting contention of opponent that they completed the syllabus as scheduled. Therefore there reveals deficiency in service on the part of opponent for not completing the syllabus. It is alleged by students that some good teachers left, that badly affected the students. The opponent could not deny this contention of complainant.
19 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 The opponent has relied upon the newspaper cutting showing that some students of the coaching classes succeeded in JEE and NEET exam . However, success of some students does not give inference that the opponent was perfectly right for his duties towards all the students. Therefore , deficiency in service for not completing total syllabus and not teaching by good teachers is proved.
(ii) The appellant has contention that he is not the proprietor of the classes and the complainants filed complaints wrongly against him. However, it is contended by the complainant that the same person Biswal has given statement in criminal complaint before the police that he is the director of the classes. The opponent has not denied the statement made by him before the police. Therefore, the contention of the opponent that the case is filed against the unconcerned person or the case is of mis-joinder of the party is not acceptable.
(15) It reveals that the opponent recovered 100% fees of the coaching for 2 years in first year only. In our opinion, this is harsh term or act accepting entire fees in one year itself on the part of opponent. Generally, the fees is recovered for single year by the colleges or universities. It reveals that the opponent exceeded their right of recovery of fees beyond one year. It reveals that the opponent recovered Rs.1,00,000/- fees towards 2 years coaching of the student/complainant in C.C.475/2018. Therefore fees for 1 year would be Rs. 50,000/- only. It reveals that, by recovering 2 years fees in first year 20 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 only the opponent has put an unjustified condition on the complainant to complete the coaching for 2 years at their Institute only. It reveals that the choice or the option of choosing other class after one year is denied by the opponent by recovering the two years fees. It is on record that opponent recovered like amounts from other complainants as shown in the table in sub-para II of para 4. It reveals that there is a clause in admission form that the fees shall be refunded to the student within 3 days of admission. However, this clause appears to be justifiable for the fees of first year only and not for 2nd year. Therefore there reveal deficiency in service on the part of opponent. Therefore the opponent is required to be directed to refund the fees they recovered for the second year, which is Rs.50,000/- in case of C.C.No.475/2018. The District Forum directed the opponent to refund the total fees of Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant. We do not agree with the District Forum in directing the opponent to refund the total fees. District Forum did not consider that the complainant received the coaching for 1st year. Though there are certain grievances of the complainants regarding mis-management or incomplete/partial completion of syllabus, changing of teachers etc. However, direction to refund total fees is not acceptable. The institute has already spent for building, furniture, stationary for notes, payment of teachers, purchase of chemicals for practical is not considered by the District Forum. Therefore there requires interference in the order of District Forum to the extent of directions of refund of 50% of the total fees the opponent recovered from the complainant.
21 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 (16) The Complainants have also filed the separate appeals for granting interest on the amounts awarded by the District Forum and awarding compensation for mental agony and educational loss. It reveals that the District Forum has held deficiency on the part of opponent classes. It appears that the District Forum directed only to refund the fees paid by the complainant/s. It is contended by complainants that the District Forum did not appreciate the claims of complainants for mental agony, cost of litigation, compensation towards loss of education. However, it cannot be ignored that the complainants studied in the classes for almost one year and availed teaching, enjoyed the laboratory facilities, computer facilities, stationeries etc. Though there is allegation that the opponents completed syllabus of 32% and there is change of teachers which affected the studies of the students. Even if for the sake of arguments the deficiency on the part of opponent is considered it is not just and proper to direct refund of total fees to the complainants with interest and compensation for agony and cost of litigation considering the period of actual class and no grievance raised for above one year. We have already discussed that the opponents have recovered fees of Rs.1,00,000/- for 2 years in advance in first year only. In our opinion it is not just and proper on the part of opponent to receive the fees for 2 years in advance in 1 year only. In Universities and colleges the fees is recovered from the students for one year only and not for the total course. Therefore, directions of District Forum to refund total fees of Rs.1,00,000/- which is for 2 years is not justified. In our opinion , directions to refund fees recovered for second year is just and proper. It appears that 22 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 the District Forum did not consider the other claims of the complaints. In our opinion, it will be just and proper to give directions to opponent to pay interest of 9% on the refund of fees awarded on modification of order in appeal. District Forum has awarded Rs.3000/- towards cost only. In our opinion , considering fact and circumstances of present cases the complainants are also entitled for mental agony. The complainants have also insisted for compensation for their educational loss. However, as discussed earlier, they have availed educational facilities and teaching for first year and left the classes as per their own choice. In view of amount awarded towards mental agony no separate order is required for educational loss. In the circumstances and in view of aforesaid discussions, appeals filed by both the parties deserve to be partly allowed with following modifications in the order. Hence the order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal Nos. 1105 to 1115 OF 2019 filed by opponents are partly allowed.
2. Appeal Nos. 1132 to 1141 & 1150 OF 2019 filed by complainants are partly allowed.
3. The order passed by District Forum is hereby set aside and modified as follows.
i) In C.C.No. 475/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.fifty thousand only) with 9% interest 23 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
ii) In C.C.No. 476/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.47,500/-(Rs.Forty seven thousand and five hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
iii) In C.C.No. 477/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rs.Forty thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
iv) In C.C.No. 478/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.47,500/-(Rs.Forty seven thousand and five hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
v) In C.C.No. 479/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.35,000/-(Rs.Thirty Five thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
vi) In C.C.No. 480/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.37,500/-(Rs.Thirty Seven thousand and five hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
vii) In C.C.No. 481/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.35,000/-(Rs.Thirty Five thousand only) with 9% 24 A/ 1105 to 1115/2019 , 1132 to 1141/2019 & 1150/2019 interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
viii) In C.C.No. 508/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rs.Forty Five thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
ix) In C.C.No. 596/2018, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rs.Forty thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
x) In C.C.No. 35/2019, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rs.Forty five thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
xi) In C.C.No. 217/2019, the opponent is directed to refund amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of consumer complaint within one month of receipt of this order.
4. The complainant in each case is entitled for Rs.3000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards cost of proceedings.
5. No order as to cost in appeals.
6. Copy of this order be placed on the record of A/1132 to 1141 & 1150/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
MBM