State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narayana Iit Academy vs Pritam Dass on 8 October, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.10.2012 First Appeal No.2010/662 (Arising out of Order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum(West) Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.290/2009) Narayana IIT Academy, Appellant/Opposite Party 47-B, Kalu Sarai through Mr. Yogender Singh New Delhi -110016. advocate. Versus Sh. Pritam Dass .Respondent/Complainant E-1000, Saraswati Vihar, in person New Delhi -110034. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. The appellant/OP is a coaching academy running classes for preparing the students for IIT entrance examination. Respondent/complainants son took admission in Kohat Branch, Delhi of the appellant on 31.05.2008, by paying amount of fee totaling Rs.91,012/- for two years classroom programme and thereafter started attending classes after 03.06.2008. Son of the respondent attended classes for about 5 months and left the appellant academy. Thereafter the respondent asked for refund of Rs.71,000/- out of the amount paid to the appellant, as on demand of the respondent, the appellant told him that the entire fee was not refundable, due to the fact that the appellant had paid service tax of Rs.10012/- etc. On this demand of the respondent, the appellant cited the undertaking given by the respondent/complainant which was duly signed by him and his son, and refused to refund any amount to the respondent/complainant. But later on persistence of the respondent the appellant refunded Rs.28,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent/complainant.
2. The respondent filed a complaint before District Forum, attributing unfair trade practice against the appellant alleging that the appellant provided in his leaflet that appellant teaching methodology revolves around prime attention on clarity of concepts from basic level to the highest level of competition with remedial measures in identified weak areas. Respondent alleged that this citation of the appellant/OP had allured the respondent/complainant and his son and he got his son admitted in the appellant academy but after attending classes for four months and 20 days his son realized that the appellant had arbitrarily reversed the programme and had started imparting education in higher course detrimental to the interest of Class X students, and thus was beyond the comprehension of respondents son and despite assurance given to the respondent to set the things right the appellant had failed to fulfill the promise leading respondent son to leave the course after putting much energy and wasting precious time, and also spending money.
3. Claim of the respondent/complainant was opposed by the OP/appellant by filing written statement denying any deficiency on its part pleading that the respondents son did not attend coaching class on his own free wish and will. OP alleged that in special circumstances, OP Institute after deducting service tax, maintenance charges, study material charges, administration charges as well as tuition fee for the period of service, which the respondent son had availed, had refunded an amount of Rs.28,000/- out of fee received from the complainant as full and final settlement of his claim.
4. District Forum on consideration of evidence of both the parties held that the respondents son had to leave coaching class in the midstream on account of deficiency on part of the appellant, and the appellant, therefore, was liable to refund the balance proportionate fee after deducting 1/4th of the total fee paid by the respondent to the OP. District Forum therefore directed the OP to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.39,500/- more besides what had already been paid to the respondent.
5. That is what brings the OP/appellant in appeal before this Commission, on various grounds, inter-alia, that the Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had claimed refund including admission fee and the service tax, while it was undertaken by the respondent that his ward would not leave the Institute before completing full course, and if he did so in the mid of session, the respondent would not demand refund of fee. The appellant has also urged that it is a self financed Institute running with the funds collected from the students and once a batch starts most of the expenses like rent of building, salary of teachers and non-teaching staff, electricity and water expenses, money spent for purchase of study material, administrative expenses etc. have to be borne by a student, and in case if a student leaves the Institute for his personal reasons without any fault of the appellant, as happened in the present case, there remains no possibility or likelihood of any new admission in the appellant Institute
6. We have heard Mr. Yogender Singh, counsel for the appellant and Respondent in person in this appeal.
7. A copy of the cheque of amount of Rs.28,000/- paid by the appellant to the respondent, receipt of which is admitted by the respondent/complainant, is available on the file. Apart from the said cheque, the appellant/OP has filed no evidence in support of the fact that the said cheque was given by the appellant/OP to the respondent/complainant in full and final settlement of his claim, as alleged by the appellant/OP. In absence of the said evidence, it cannot, therefore, be held that the said amount of the cheque was paid by the appellant/OP to the respondent/complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. A complaint was filed before the District Forum in the year 2009 alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of appellant/OP claiming refund of Rs.71,000/- only against total fee of Rs.91,012/- paid by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/OP, while the appellant/OP paid the respondent only Rs.28,000/-.
8. With regard to other contention of the counsel for the appellant that the son of the respondent/complainant withdrew himself at his own will and that as per his own endorsement on the Form, he cannot claim refund of fee paid by him to the appellant, we are not in agreement with the contention of the appellant/OP, for the reason that it is after studying for some months, the son of the respondent came to know that the teaching instructions imparted to him were not of the standard comprehensible for respondents son. District Forum was therefore wholly justified to hold the appellant/OP guilty for deficient in service.
9. Now adverting to the issue of award, it appears that the Forum, while fixing the amount of compensation did not take into account that after having received Rs.28,000/- respondent/complainant was entitled for refund of Rs.20250/- (1/4th of Rs.91012/-, Rs.22750/- + Rs.28,000/-) out of the balance of the fee amount Rs.71,000/- because the respondent complainant himself did not dispute non-refund of admission fee and the service tax included in the total fee amounting to Rs.91,012/- because service tax is legally payable by the appellant to the Revenue Department, and the admission fee is charged for completing the process of admission involving the admission test and other administrative expenses.
10. We therefore allowing the appeal partly modify the amount of award passed by the Forum to the extent that the appellant shall pay Rs.20250/- in addition to the amount already paid by him to the respondent. No order as to costs.
11. A copy of this order be provided to the counsel for the appellant, whereas a copy of this order be sent to District Forum(West). The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
Announced on 08th day of October 2012.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri