State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Fiitjee Limited vs Daya Chand Prasad (Minor) on 9 August, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 09-08-2012 Case No. FA-09/327 (Arising from the order dated 6.4.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 810/06 by the District Consumer Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi). M/S FIITJEE LIMITED - APPELLANT Registered Office at Vashisht House, 29A, Kalu Sarai, Near Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi. Versus DAYA CHAND PRASAD (MINOR) Through his father Sh. Chhotu Prasad 191-912, ESIC Colony, Basaidarapur, New Delhi 110 015. 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 (ORAL) ORDER
1. This appeal filed by the OP is directed against the order dated 6.4.2009 is passed in complaint case No. 810/06 by the District Consumer Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, whereby the appellants have been directed to refund to the complainant (herein after referred to as Respondent) a sum of Rs. 46,000/- as against the total tuition fee deposited by him at the time of admission.
2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeal briefly stated are that the Respondent took admission in AIEEE for CRP-1 (one year Classroom Programme) after qualifying the admission test on 12.8.2006. The Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 52753/- to the Appellant vide receipt No. 4356 dated 12.8.2006. He was allotted a specific batch and started attending the classes w.e.f. 17.8.2006. He was allotted a specific batch and started attending the classes w.e.f. 17.8.2006. He attended the classes upto Oct. 2006, whereafter, he requested the appellant to refund the course fee deposited on 12.8.2006. The appellant declined to refund the fee on the ground that as per the declaration signed by the respondent and his father, they were not entitled for any refund.
3. Aggrieved by the refusal, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that he had sought the admission with the OP allured by the representations of the appellants that they have highly experienced teachers and was made to sign the enrolment form and other papers, but while attending the classes, he found that the faculty was not competent and qualified to guide the students properly as claimed by the appellants. It was also alleged that the respondent represented to the management of the Appellant about the low-standard and quality of teaching but continued attending the classes with the hope of improvement in teaching which, however, did not take place compelling him to withdraw after about two months.
4. The appellant pleaded before the District Forum that they are self-financing Institute preparing the students for the IIT & JEE and the Institute is run by the fees collected from the students.
To ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard, they do not fill up the vacancies created against any student who leaves the course midway. They have been employing well-qualified and competent teachers who are from different IITs. Reiterating that the respondent and his father have given undertaking in their duly signed declaration that they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the declaration without any reservation or ambiguity, fully understanding that the fee once paid was not refundable at all, for whatever reason might be and that admission is taken on respondents own sweet-will after giving due consideration to the rigors of time, distance and studies ahead without any coercion from any side.
5. Considering the material brought on record by the parties and their rival contentions, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned order which brings the Appellants in appeal before this Commission. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully examined the ground of appeal as set up in the memo of appeal in the light of case law cited by the respective parties. We have also thoughtfully considered the impugned order which is entirely based on the decision taken by this Commission in the case reported as FIITJEE Ltd. Vs Minathi RATH (Dr.) reported as IV (2006) CPJ 255.
6. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the submission made before the Ld. District Forum by the Appellants, ignoring the fact that the Honble National Commission vide order dated 24.11.2006 in Revision Petition No. 3365 of 2006 in FIITJEE VS Dr. Minathi Rath had stayed the operation of the order of this Commission and hence deciding the complaint on the basis of that decision is not only erroneous but also against the Law.
They relied upon Catena of decisions including one of the Supreme Court and some given by National Commission and State Commissions, pith and substance of which is that the Consumer Fora can not go beyond the contract entered between the parties and to constitute a consumer dispute, there must establish Deficiency-in-Service on the part of Opposite Party. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellants that despite the Respondent had failed to produce any material before the District forum to prove any deficiency-in-service on their part, the Ld. Forum directed for the refund of the fee contrary to the terms and conditions duly signed by the complainant and his father.
7. On behalf of the Complainant reliance has been placed on two decisions dated 12.10.2011 and 19.10.2011 of this Commission in the cases between Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University, Delhi Vs Lovekesh Kumar Sharma and Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University Vs Ms Disha Jain respectively, and one of the national Commission in the case FIITJEE Ltd Vs. Dr. Minathi Rath reported as I(2012)CPJ 194 (NC)
8. A bare perusal of the judgment in the case of Dr. Minathi Rath (Supra) of the National Commission, it is found that it is the same case earlier decided by this Commission on 4.10.2006 which had been relied upon by the Ld. District Forum while allowing the complaint. Petitioners in the cited case are the Appellants before us and the decision in this case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Quoting observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case entitled Islamic Academy of Education Vs State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, Honble National Commission has held that the petitioners are obliged to return the advance fee for the period when the student did not attend the course, irrespective of the fact that the respondent left the Institution before completing the course and the Institute could not be held justified in refusing to pay the same by citing Contractual Agreement. The Revision Petitions were accordingly dismissed and the order of the State Commission was upheld interalia with following modifications:- The Petitions/Institutes are directed to refund the Fees (excluding the Service Tax) for the unutilized period with interest and compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
9. In the case before us the admitted facts are the Respondent paid the entire fee for one year course but after attending for about two months, he left attending the classes because he did not find the teaching satisfactory in the Institute. The Appellants cannot take shelter of the declaration signed by the students in view of the decision laid in the case of Dr. Minathi Rath (Supra) recently decided by the national commission. In the light of this decision, we are unable to find any fault with the impugnedorders because term deficiency as denied vide clause (g) of Sub Sec.(1) of Section 2 includes any inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance required to be maintained or has been undertake to perform by a person in relation to any service. The term Service as defined by Sub-clause(o) means service of any description which is made available to potential users, the provision of facilities in connection with education. It is not disputed by the Appellant that they are providing educational facilities to prepare the students for IIT & JEE and the respondent had joined one year classroom Programme after qualifying an admission test. Admittedly, he had paid the consideration by depositing full fee of Rs. 52,753/- in advance of the course on 12.8.2006. It is also admitted case of the Appellants that the respondent attended the cases from 17.8.2006 till Oct. 2006. It is claimed by the Respondent that he left the course after attending the classes for about two months having been dissatisfied with the quality and standard of teaching Thus, it stands established that the Respondent studied with the Appellant only for two months having paid full fee for the course in advance of one year Programme. As per the affidavit of Sh. Chhotu Prasad, Father of the Respondent (Minor) submitted in evidence in the complainant before the District Forum, it has been categorically sworn on solemn affirmation, that complainants complained to the Management of FIITJEE of the low standard of teaching and he became very much perturbed but he continued the classes in the hope of better teaching in future but after few days, he could not find any improvement in the teaching standards. The complain(ant) again met the management but they told, (that) the teaching staff was competent enough and no change would be made in the teaching.
10. That the complain(ants) son reminded the Management of the Promise to provide well experience(d) teachers but the management of the Opposite (Party) refused to listen anything further and told that the complain(ant) may stop attending the classes Relying upon the above testimony of the Respondents, we can be safely conclude that the service of teaching provided to the respondent was not adequate to satisfy the Respondent, who, therefore, had to withdraw from the course.
11. As a result of our above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Ld. District Forum in this case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed.
Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum for record and one copy each as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties concerned.
12. The FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities
13. File, thereafter, be consigned to record room.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (SALMA NOOR) MEMBER rn