State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Brilliant Tutorials vs Sh. Ashwani Verma on 25 January, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 25.01.2010 First Appeal No.2009/605 (Arising out of Order dated 02.05.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, (East) Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi in Case No. 695/2008) M/s Brilliant Tutorials, Appellant Private Limited, Through Mr. K.K. Rohatgi, 13-A, Pratap Nagar, Advocate Adjacent to Jeevan Anmol Hospital, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi Versus Sh. Ashwani Verma Respondent B-300, B-Sector-19, in person Noida -201301(U.P.) CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Sh. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barket Ali Zaidi, President(Oral)
1. The respondents son who was studying in Intermediate, obtained admission in OPs appellants Institute for preparing himself for the admission test of BTYCP, IIT JEE 2009. The respondent paid Rs.80337/- to the OP appellant Institute as fee for two years Academic course. After around eight months or so, the respondents son relinquished the OPs Institute and sought refund of half of the amount paid by him on the ground that his sons performance in the class examination of Physics and Chemistry was not improved and he failed.
2. The proceedings against the appellant Institute were ex-parte, before the District Forum, and the District Forum ordered the refund of Rs.36,000/-, fee for one academic year alongwith compensation of Rs.3000/- and the litigation costs Rs.2000/-.
3. That is what brings the OP appellant Institute in appeal, before, this State Commission.
4. Mr. K.K. Rohatgi, Counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person have been heard.
5. At the outset it has to be noticed that the respondents son had taken admission in appellants Institute for preparing himself for the admission test of BTYCP, IIT JEE -2009. It had nothing to do with the performance of his son in the Intermediate class in the school. If he failed in class examination of physics and chemistry, it had nothing to do, with coaching of the OP appellant. There is no nexus between these two factors and there is as such no deficiency in service by the appellant OP.
6. As regards the refund of the fee, the argument of the respondent complainant was that since his son received coaching for less than a year, the appellant OP should return the amount for the period for which the respondents son did not receive any coaching. As against, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in the brochure of the OP appellant Institute, it is mentioned that the fees once paid will not be refundable and this rule is also mentioned in the terms and condition of the Registration Form, which is binding on the parties, because the respondents son took admission on the rules, mentioned in the brochure as well as, the Registration Form, filled, by the complainants son under the signatures of the son and the father(complainant). In support of his contention he referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of, Kalka Institute for Research & Advance Studies & Anr. Vs Hitesh Kumar & Ors., 127(2006) Delhi Law Times 606(DB), where the High Court has held that the rules on the basis whereof admission was made, are binding on the candidates.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant has charged the fee for whole two years, while the complainants son attended the Institute classes for nine months and thus the Institute has rendered service for nine months or so to him. The fee for the remaining period is therefore lying with the Institute, which the Institute does not want to refund on the ground that the complainant and his son have themselves signed the condition mentioned in the Admission Form that the fee once paid will not be refundable.
8. We are inclined to disagree with this contention of the appellants counsel as this issue was considered and decided by the Supreme Court in case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Other (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 697. It is what the Supreme Court has held It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the year remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institution even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected the fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in nationalized bank. As and when fees falls due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due.
9. As already held fee for about a year or so is already lying with the Institute, which for, it has to render no service to the complainants son. Allowing the Institute to withhold the said amount of fee will tantamount to, agreeing with the Institute to withhold and charging the fee unfairly without giving any service to, which he cannot propose.
10. The District Forum was therefore wholly justified in passing the impugned award, directing the OP appellant to refund the fee and to pay the compensation and the litigation, costs. The appeal has therefore no merits and is dismissed accordingly.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
12. 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 Record room.
13. Announced on 25th day of January 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member Tri