State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brilliant Tutorials vs Rahul Dass on 9 January, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of decision : 09.01.2007 Appeal No.A-509/2006 (Arising from order dated 04.04.2006 passed by District Forum-II,Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in complaint Case No.668/2005) Brilliant Tutorials Appellant 50-C, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi Versus Mr. Rahul Dass Respondent BC/1-H, DDA Flats, Munirka, N.Delhi CORAM: Justice J.D.Kapoor President Mr.Mahesh Chandra Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor(ORAL)
1. There is no need to issue notice of this appeal to the respondent as the matter is simple and can be decided in just and proper perspective on the basis of pleadings of the parties as well as rival contentions made before the District Forum and settled position of law and that too without reversing the order or affecting the merits or substantially varying or modifying the order.
2. The appellant imparts coaching to the students for entrance test of various recognized institutes.
Respondents son joined the two year classroom Programme of the appellant for coaching for the entrance examination of IIT and paid the full fees of Rs.51,840/- on 21.6.2006. After 3 months he discontinued and sought refund of the fees but the appellant refused to refund the fees by quoting a rule that fees once paid will not be refunded or adjusted under any circumstances. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
3. Vide impugned order dated 04.04.2006, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to refund the proportionate fees of Rs.38,000/- and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the parties were bound by the terms of the contract and therefore, it was made known to the respondent at the time of taking admission that fees once paid will neither be refunded nor be adjusted under any circumstances. Recently in case after case, we have held that any educational institution, university or school cannot be allowed to forfeit the consideration for a period for which service of coaching or training has not been provided. we have also taken a view that schools or institutes can at the most charge tuition fees of three months in advance in case of a course or class or training for one year and six months for a course or class or training of more than one year as no service provider can be allowed to charge the consideration for such a long period say one to three years for which service is yet to be provided. Such a practice is adopted only to collect huge amount of money and thereby making themselves unjustly rich and binding the candidate for the whole duration even if the service is later on found to be highly deficient and sub-standard. Such a practice has also an abominable ingredient of exploitation of student community and is unfair trade practice.
5. Further any such term of contract between the parties which allows the provider of service to forfeit the amount of service which he has not provided is against the public policy and good conscious, unjust and unconscionable as the provider of service has the right to charge consideration only if it provides the service. The school or institutes can at least deduct the amount of expenses incurred in the process of admission and refund the entire remaining fees received by it.
6. As term of the contract which is unconscionable or voidablle is not enforceable, no service provider like the training institutes, educational institutes/schools or the coaching centers can be allowed to forfeit the fees or consideration received in advance in case the student has not availed the service. Thus the term that fees once paid is not refundable is unconscionable and unfair trade practice as well as voidable and therefore not actionable. A student or a trainee may leave in the mid-stream if he finds the service deficient and sub-standard and non-yielding and to tell him that fees once paid is not refundable is uncalled for and unfair trade practice as no service provider can take or charge the consideration of the service which it has either not given or has not been availed. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
7. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt.
8. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Justice J.D.Kapoor) President (Mahesh Chandra) Member slc