State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Fiitjee Ltd. & Anr. vs Manas Kumar Verma & Anr. on 17 August, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/15/124
Instituted on : 16.03.2015
1. FIITJEE LTD.,
29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi - 110016
Through : It's A.R.
Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal.
2. Centre - Incharge,
FIIT-JEE, Bhilai Centre,
142, New Civic Centre,
District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Manas Kumar Verma,
S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Verma.
2. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Verma,
S/o Late Shri Ishwar Prasad,
Both residents of :
Q. No.E/41, NIT, Raipur Campus,
Chhattisgarh. .... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Mukesh Goyal, for appellants.
Shri R. B. Sharma, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 17/08/2015 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) // 2 // (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.C.C./14/240. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint filed by respondent (complainant) and directed the appellants (OPs) to jointly and severally pay within a period of one month from the date of order a sum of Rs.75,842/- to the respondents (complainants) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 19.08.2014 till realisation. The appellants (OPs) have further been directed to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondents (complainants).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) is a minor and son of the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2), who holds a highly acclaimed academic post of Profession in the National Institute of Technology, Raipur (C.G.) The appellants (OPs) institution provides coaching to the students aspiring for getting admitted to IITs and other institutes engaged in engineers and technology education. The appellant (O.P.No.1) is the principal while the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) is his agent / functionary at Bhilai. The respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) got his son, the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1), admitted to the 2 - year PINNACLE programme in class - 11 in April/May, 2013, which was being provided by the Bhilai branch of the appellants (OPs) Institution at Sri Sankara // 3 // Vidyalaya, Sector - 10, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). That the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) was asked by the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) to pay the 2 - year course fee for class - 11 and 12 in advance, which he, in order to have better future for his ward, the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1), through admission into institute of the appellants (OPs), complied with, with details as under :-
a) Fees for the 1st year of the course.
S. No. Details of payment. Purpose.
1. Banker's cheque No.570270 dated Tuition fee for the
12/05/2013 for Rs.1,46,855/- issued by 1st year (class - 11)
State Bank of India, Sector 10, Bhilai.
2. Banker's Cheque No.570271 dated Books & study
12/05/2013 for Rs.21,100/- issued by material for 1st
State Bank of India, Sector 10, Bhilai. year (class - 11)
b) Fees for the 2nd year of the course.
S. No. Details of payment. Purpose.
1. Cheque No.759286 dated 02.02.2014 Tuition fee for the
(Post dated) for Rs.61,742/- of the State 2nd year (class -
Bank of India, GCET Branch, Raipur 12)
(The cheque was encashed on
04.02.2014).
2. Cheque No.759287 dated 02/02/2014 Books & study
(Post dated) for Rs.14,100/- of the State material for 2nd Bank of India, GCET Branch, Raipur year (class - 12) (The cheque was encashed on 04.02.2014).
The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) took admission in the 2 - year PINNACLE course of the appellants (OPs) being provided at Sri // 4 // Sankara Vidayalaya, Sector 10, Bhilai but could not continue in 2nd year of the course because his scoring went down and could not find the course satisfactory. The respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) informed the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) of his decision to discontinue his ward's respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) studies being provided by the appellants (OPs) at the above mentioned coaching centre and therefore, requested the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) vide his letter dated 31.03.2014 to deregister the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and refund the fees of Rs.75,842/- which he paid in advance for the 2nd year of the course. The appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) did not respond to the above mentioned letter dated 31.03.2014 sent by the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) and the latter did make a request again on 10.06.2014 for refund of the fees for the period during which the services of the appellants (OPs) were not availed, but in vain. The peeved respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) sent a legal notice through his lawyer on 12.07.2014 to both the appellants (OPs) and asked for them to refund the fees charged for the services that were not availed by the student, the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1), but the appellants (OPs) preferred again to remain unresponsive and irresponsible. The appellants (OPs) act of charging fees for undelivered services and then not responding to the respondents (complainants) demand for refund of that, proved deficiency in service on their part. The appellants (OPs) were simply callous and unresponsive in their acts and attitude. The // 5 // appellants (OPs) reckless acts not only brought adverse financial stress to the respondents (complainants) but also made them to suffer mentally particularly the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) who had to leave some of the institutional assignments. The above acts of the appellants (OPs) have caused avoidable mental agony as well as harassment to the respondents (complainants). The appellants (OPs) acts have been in complete negation of the objective of the Consumer Protection Act, which has the protection of the interest of the consumer in its centrality. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the appellants (OPs) are deplorable and liable to attract displeasure in a judicial proceeding. Therefore, the respondents (complainants) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellants (OPs) filed their joint written statement. The appellants (OPs) raised preliminary objections and averred that the present complaint, as has been filed, is neither maintainable nor sustainable both in facts and law. Moreover, the facts and circumstances, as stated in the complaint, do not disclose any consumer dispute/cause of action against appellants (OPs) and as such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed at the outright. The complaint is not maintainable as the respondents (complainants) have failed to show any // 6 // deficiency in providing services by the appellants (OPs). The respondents (complainants) have not annexed even a single document to show any deficiency. The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) himself withdrew voluntary from the course he opted to pursue and now demanding the refund of the fees which is not refundable as per the terms and conditions of the Enrollment Form, which had been signed by the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and his father, respondent No.2 (complainant No.2). Therefore, the complaint is without consumer disputes and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The respondents (complainants) have failed to show any non-performance of any of the term and condition of the contract on the part of the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) have performed their part of the contract and it is the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) who is at fault. The appellants (OPs) are running the course successfully and no student left the course in midway on ground of deficiency voluntarily except the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1). The respondents (complainants) have filed the present complaint in order to gain at the cost of the appellants (OPs). The respondents (complainants) have agreed and accepted Arbitration Clause forming part of declaration attached to the Enrollment Form. Hence this complaint is barred by the Arbitration Agreement and the matter should be referred to the Sole Arbitrator. The present complaint is nothing but a total misuse of the process of law and the same requires an outright dismissed from the // 7 // District Forum. The terms and conditions as laid down in the declaration signed by the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and his father, respondent No.2 (complainant No.2. While seeking admission / registration with the appellants OPs), for PINNACLE - Two Years Integrated School Programme for IIT-JEE, the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and his father, respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) had read, understood and thereafter accorded their consent to the said terms and conditions as contained therein without any coercion or undue influence. The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and his father, respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) have counter signed and signed respectively, various declarations. Thus by signing those declaration, both of them have accorded their unconditional and free consent and are thus bound by them, as per law. It is the settled position of the law that the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission cannot go behind the term and conditions of the Contract executed between the parties. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the term and conditions of the contract in the context in which the same was executed without altering the nature of the contract, otherwise it may affect the interest of the parties adversely. The present complaint is a concluded contract and consumer forums cannot go behind the contract. The respondents (complainants) have not approached the District Forum with clean hands. Once by binding themselves by consenting and thereafter signing the declarations, they // 8 // are legally barred from agitating against the same at this stage. Once the Enrollment Form has been filled up, signed and submitted by the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1), the appellants (OPs) in light of the declarations made therein and in good faith, initiated procedure for arranging for training/classes for the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1). In the said process the appellants (OPs) puts in its services, efforts and at time also hire the services of the related professionals, on payment. Now, once the enrollment form has been submitted and the consent thereto accorded, and also, in the light of the same, the appellants (OPs) having acted upon it, in good faith, the respondents (complainants) should be restrained from dragging away their feet as it would cause a serious and irreparable loss and injury to the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) also averred that the payment was not demanded in advance for two years. There are various options to pay, it is the sole discretion of the student and his/ her guardian as to the mode in which they want to pay. The PDC are taken and same is encashed just before the commencement of the second year course. The batches for class 12 were formed on 23.03.2014 and had started the studies of Class 12th. As per the concluded contract entered between the parties in case of withdrawal, the fees will not be refunded was in knowledge of the respondents (complainants). The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and his ward were time and again informed that the fee is not refundable on their visit and telephonically. The respondent // 9 // No.1 (complainant No.1) was informed about the terms and conditions of admission. This facts was in knowledge of the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) from the day one. The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) on its own sweet will withdraw from the course without any deficiency on the part of the appellants (OPs). By sending a legal notice or letter, the terms and conditions of the contract cannot be altered, by doing so the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and his father respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) have put to further loss and harassment on the appellants (OPs). The appellants (complainants) have caused economic and financial loss to the appellants (OPs) along with harassment. The appellants (OPs) have not acted in complete negation of the objection of the interest of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents (complainants) have not acted in accordance to the Contract Act, as they have signed a binding contract and the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) on its own sweet will cannot go again the same and if they do so they are liable to compensate the appellants (OPs) for going against the contract.
4. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it, allowed the complaint and directed the appellants (OPs) to jointly and severally pay compensation to the respondents (complainants), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
// 10 //
5. The respondents (complainants) filed documents. Annexure A/1 is photocopy of A/c Statement from 1st May, 2013 to 31st May, 2013 of the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2), Annexure A/2 is photocopy of A/c Statement from 1st February, 2014 to 28th February, 2014 of the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2), Annexure A/3 is letter by the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) dated 31.03.2014 for discontinuation of the studies in the 2nd year of the Pinnacle course, Annexure A-4 is letter by the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) dated 10.06.2014 for refund of fees of the 2nd year of the Pinnacle Course, Annexure A-5 is legal notice dated 12.07.2014, Annexure A/6 is postal receipt dated 12.07.2014, Annexure A/7 is Status Report for delivery of the notice to appellant No.1 (O.P.No.1), Annexure A/8 is Status Report for delivery of the notice to appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2).
6. The appellants (OPs) have filed documents. OP-I is photocopy of certified true copy of the resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company held on September 21, 2013 at 11.00 A.M. at 29 A Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi, OP-II is Fee Acknowledgement, Enrollment Form.
7. Shri Mukesh Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) submitted declaration form and the declaration form was duly signed by the respondent No.2 (complainant No.2), who is father of the // 11 // respondent No.1 (complainant No.1), therefore, the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract, which was executed between the parties, are binding on the respondents (complainants) and this Commission cannot go behind the terms and conditions of the contract. The present contract is a concluded contract and consumer forums cannot go behind the contract and it is binding on respondents (complainants). The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) was admitted in 2 Year PINNACLE - Integrated School Programme for IIT-JEE and the respondent No.1 (complainant) had regularly attended the 1st year of the course and if the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) was not satisfied with the quality of teaching, then the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) could immediately state the appellants (OPs)regarding the quality of teaching, but the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) attended the coaching classes for one year, therefore, he cannot seek refund of the amount deposited by the respondents (complainants). The entire coaching schedule was provided to the respondents (complainants) and after satisfying with the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent No.1 (complainant) took admission in PINNACLE - 2 years Integrated School Programme for IIT-JEE. Therefore, the respondents (complainants) are not entitled for refund of the fees paid by them. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on orders of Hon'ble // 12 // National Commission in Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 - Brilliant Classes, Through Its Manager/Authorized Signatory vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.01.2010; Revision Petition No.4476 of 2013- FIITJEE LTD. vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta, decided on 21st May, 2014; Revision Petition No.4464 of 2012 - Globsyn Business School vs. Mayuri Ghosh, decided on 31.05.2013; Revision Petition No.4335 of 2014 - Mayank Tiwari vs. M/s. FIITJEE LTD. decided on 08th December, 2014; Revision Petition No.2684 of 2014 - FIITJEE LTD. vs. S. Balavignesh, decided on 09th January, 2015 and Revision Petition No.1375 of 2014 - FIITJEE LTD. Through It's A.R. Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal vs. Varjeet Walia, decided on 06th July, 2015.
8. Shri R.B. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (complainants) has justified the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and has submitted that the respondent No.1 (complainant) No.1 had attended only 1st year (class - 11) course and he was not satisfied with the quality of teaching and the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) could not continue in the 2nd year of the course because his scoring went down and he could not find the course satisfactory, therefore, he did not want to continue in the 2nd year Pinnacle course. The quality of teaching of the appellants (OPs) was not satisfactory, therefore, the respondents (complainants0 are entitled for refund of the fees paid by them to the appellants (OPs). He further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is // 13 // a well reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) got admitted in PINNACLE - Two Year Integrated School Programme for IIT-JEE. Annexure A/3 is Enrollment Form. In the Enrollment Form, it is mentioned Pinnacle - Two Year Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE and the test centre was Shankar Nagar Vidya Mandir School, Near Vidya Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G). Terms and conditions for post dated cheque(s) were also mentioned. In Annexure A Terms & Conditions For Post Dated Cheque(s), it is mentioned that "I understand that if my son/daughter /ward withdraws from the Program to which he/she has been admitted at any point of time or does not attend the Program and thus the seat given to him/her is rendered vacant, the same will not/cannot be filled up by any other candidate and a vacancy created in the batch due to withdrawal of a student after the starting of the classes or up to 2 days prior to the same cannot be filled in any case, therefore, I understand that FIITJEE shall suffer irreparable losses in case of non-payment of remaining fee of the installment plan, hence it will be unethical not to honor the Post Dated // 14 // Cheque(s). I have opted for installment fee plan and have submitted the Post Dated Cheque(s) as per the details given below :-
Details of Post Dated Cheque (Only Local/Payable at par cheques will be accepted.
S.No. Cheque Dated Issuing Fee S. Tax Total
No. Bank amount amount amount
1. 759286 02/02/14 S.B.I. 54950/- 6792/- 61742/-
2. 759287 02/02/14 S.B.I. 14100/- -- 14100
11. In Enrollment Form, the Declarations / Undertakings have also given. The declaration No.8 and 10 read thus :-
"8. I undertake that if I leave the institute midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to transfer of my Father / Mother / Legal Guardian / ill health of myself or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute / course / engineering college etc., or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc., I or my Father / Mother / Legal Guardian shall not be entitled for refund of fees.
10. In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fees once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be , nor is adjustable towards any other existing courses at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student."
12. In the Enrollment Form, the important information for students (and their parents / legal guardians) , the relevant part of it reads thus :-
"2. FIITJEE starts making arrangements of infrastructure, facility & other resources about 6 months before commencement of financial year. FIITJEE admits students as per its capacity plans (subject to unforeseen circumstances & usual organizational risks) therefore, each student taking admission has to pay complete fee under all circumstances i.e. even if he / she discontinues for any reason whatsoever or parents / // 15 // guardians be transferred. Not all students who sit in our admission test are offered admission therefore you & parents have to be very sure before taking admission as you have to pay complete fees under all circumstances.
Once a class starts FIITJEE does not admit any students. Therefore, any vacancy created by a student leaving cannot be filled up. Since FIITJEE has to source infrastructure, faculty etc. in advance, loss of fees of students leaving after taking admission will compel the institute to enhance fees for next batch of students which is unfair to them. Therefore, students / parents must clearly understand this important aspect and take admission only."
13. In Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 - Brilliant Classes, Through Its Manager/Authorized Signatory vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"On the merits of the case also we are in full agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner / opposite party that once the candidate has entered into an agreement to abide by the rules and regulations and has voluntarily deposited the course fee, he cannot at his sweet will withdraw from the course and then demand the refund of the fee on the plea of the institute holding irregular classes or rendering sub-standards lessons. It was his responsibility to have ascertained the details with regard to the running of the course by the institute before depositing the course fee for being enrolled. During the course of argument, the learned counsel also stated that the respondent / complainant had withdrawn from the course as he had already been selected for admission into an engineering college and thus three was perhaps no need for him to pursue the coaching. We find the ground of holding classes not regularly but on intervals advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent / complainant not very convincing and in any case the respondent / complainant was a willing party to the // 16 // agreement that the course fee will not be refunded, even if he withdraw in the mid-stream. In this view of the matter, no cause of action will arise for the petitioner / opposite party to refund the amount."
14. In Revision Petition No.4476 of 2013- FIITJEE LTD. vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
'10. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka" (Supra), the learned Apex Court have made it very clear that if an Institute had the apprehension that a particular student may leave in midstream, they could get a bond / bank guarantee for the balance fees for the whole course. Their Lordships have also stated in this judgment that if the fees is collected in advance, the Institute is required to keep it invested in fixed deposits in a Nationalised Bank. The ratio of this judgment makes it clear that an institute is not debarred from collecting the entire fees in advance. Moreover, it has not been stated anywhere in this judgment that a student is entitled to get refund, if he leaves the course midstream".
15. In Revision Petition No.2684 of 2014 - FIITJEE LTD. vs. S. Balavignesh (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"9. ..............It was further noted that the State Commission had rightly applied the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.22532/2012 decided on 09.08.2012 wherein relying upon its earlier decision in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, it was held that the educational institution // 17 // are not providing any kind of services and, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matter cannot be entertained by the consumer forum. There may be merit in the contention that a coaching institute such as FIIT JEE Ltd. cannot be equated to an institution such as a university since it is only assisting the student in competing for admission to IIT JEE by providing coaching to them, even if the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the parties will be bound by the terms and conditions agreed by them at the time the complainant took admission in the coaching course, unless it can be shown that the petitioner had adopted an unfair trade practice, as defined in Section 2(r) of the Act."
16. In Revision Petition No.1375 of 2014 - FIITJEE LTD. Through It's A.R. Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal vs. Varjeet Walia (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"A similar issue came up for consideration before two coordinate Benches of this Commission. Vide order dated 21.05.2014 in Revision Petition no.4476 of 2013, taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 relief upon by the lower Fora in this case as well, and certain decisions of this Commission, the Bench came to the conclusion that since the Petitioner Institute had charged only 10% of the tuition fee from the Complainant's son, there was no justification for directing refund of an amount of Rs.51,831/- to the Complainant. Similarly, vide order dated 09.01.2015, in Revision Petition No.2684 of 2014, another Bench of this Commission has come to the conclusion that having joined the course in the Petitioner Institution, the Complainant could not ask for the refund of the tuition fee paid by him. However, in the penultimate paragraph the Bench has directed the Petitioner's // 18 // Managing Director to file an affidavit stating that the seat vacated by the Complainant at the relevant point of time, during the duration of the course, was not filled up. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has stated before us that as per his instructions, it is the policy of the Petitioner Institution not to fill up any vacancy, which may be created by vacation of the seat by any candidate, after joining the coaching course."
17. In the instant case the respondents (complainants) have not been able to prove that the appellants (OPs) committed any act, which may be indicated as deficiency in service or negligence in duty in any manner. The appellants (OPs) received the fees, as mentioned in the Schedule and there is no provision for refund of the fees, if student left the course in mid-stream.
18. The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) got admitted in PINNACLE - Two Year Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE and had continuously attended 1st year (class - 11) course and at the time of teaching, the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) did not make any complaint to the appellants (OPs) regarding sub-standard quality of teaching. The respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) has not been able to prove that due to sub-standard quality of teaching, the respondent No.1 (complainant) got low marks. The respondents (complainants) entered into an agreement with the appellants (OPs) and submitted declaration form, therefore, they are abide by rules and regulations.
// 19 // The respondents (complainants) voluntarily deposited the fees with the appellants (OPs).
19. On the basis of orders of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 - Brilliant Classes, Through Its Manager vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, (Supra), Revision Petition No.4476 of 2013- FIITJEE LTD. vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta (Supra), Revision Petition No.4464 of 2012 - Globsyn Business School vs. Mayuri Ghosh (Supra); Revision Petition No.4335 of 2014 - Mayank Tiwari vs. M/s. FIITJEE LTD. (Supra); Revision Petition No.2684 of 2014 - FIITJEE LTD. vs. S. Balavignesh (Supra) and Revision Petition No.1375 of 2014
- FIITJEE LTD. Through It's A.R. Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal vs. Varjeet Walia (Supra), the respondents (complainants) are not entitled for refund of the fees deposited by them with the appellants (OPs). The impugned order passed dated 13.02.2015 passed by the learned District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
20. Therefore, we allow the appeal filed by the appellants (OPs) and set aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2015, passed by the learned District Forum. Consequently, the consumer complaint also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015