National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Fiit Jee Ltd. vs Shri Pramod Panwar on 23 April, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO. 30 of 2008
(Against order dated 23.01.2007 in Appeal
No.552/2007
of
the State Commission, Delhi)
M/s FIIT JEE Ltd.
........Petitioner
Vs.
Shri Pramod Panwar ........
Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr.
T.K. Pradhan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr.Mukesh Hooda, Advocate
Pronounced on 23rd April, 2012
ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No.552/2007 decided in favour of Pramod Panwar, Respondent herein who was the original complainant before the District Forum.
The facts of the case according to the Respondent/Complainant are that he had got his son admitted for a two years course at the Petitioner/institute and the total fee for this course was Rs.94,282/- against which Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.77,446/- to the Petitioner/Institute at one go. After attending the course for about 5 months, Respondents son was not satisfied with the poor quality of teaching imparted at the Petitioner/Institute and Respondent therefore, withdrew his son on 29.10.2006. Respondent thereafter applied for refund of the balance fee amounting to Rs.55,000/- for the period during which Respondents son did not avail services of the Petitioner/Institute which Petitioner/Institute refused to refund.
Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum and requested that Petitioner be directed to pay him the balance fee of the course for the period from 12.05.2006 to 29.10.2006 along with interest @ 24% per annum, Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical pain and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner/Institute who stated that the Petitioner is a well reputed Institute imparting quality education to students and whose admissions are based on admission test and who subsequently get admission in institutes of academic excellence like the IITs. The results have always been uniformly good and therefore, the allegation that the quality of teaching was poor is not correct. Further, at the time of the admission the Respondent and his son had agreed in writing to abide by the relevant rules in letter and spirit which inter alia stated that once a fee is paid, it is not refundable for whatever reasons nor can it be adjusted for another course at the Petitioner/Institute yet to be launched or otherwise. Therefore, the complaint is without any basis and deserves to be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence led by parties, allowed the complaint by relying on the judgment of this Commission in FIIT-JEE Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath IV(2006) CPJ 255 and directed the Petitioner/Institute to pay the Respondent a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards refund of fee, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner/Institute filed an appeal before the State Commission who dismissed the same by observing as follows:
In identical cases we have come very heavily upon such a practice by the educational institutions, education centres, schools, universities, of charging lump sum fees for 2-3 years duration in one go to charge consideration for the period for which it is yet to provide the service the institutes force the students to go on attending their institutes in spite of there being unsatisfactory services or grossest deficiency in the quality of teaching and jeopardize the career prospects of the students.
We have also taken a view that any term of the contract which is unconscionable or voidable is not enforceable. No service provider like training institutes or coaching centres or educational centres can be allowed to forfeit the fees or consideration for the service which it neither provided nor availed. Thus the term that fees once paid is not refundable is unconscionable as well as voidable and therefore not actionable particularly when such fees is charged for the whole duration of the course in advance.
A student or a trainee may leave in the midstream 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 retain the consideration for the service which it has either not given or has not availed or is yet to be provided.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for Petitioner stated that the Respondents son took admission in a two years course after signing the necessary declaration etc. which included that fees once paid are not refundable. In the instant case, Respondents son left the course after 5 months not because of any deficiency in the teaching imparted by the Petitioner/Institute but because of other non-related reasons. None of the other 33 students in the same batch backed out.
Further, one seat for the entire year got wasted because the student left the course midstream. Learned Fora below failed in not appreciating these facts and wrongly allowed the complaint of the Respondent.
Counsel for Respondent on the other hand cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Course in Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2003) 6 SCC 697 wherein it has been held that an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year and not for any longer period.
Counsel for Respondent stated that in the instance case, Petitioner/Institute had demanded Rs.94,282/- as full fees for two years course i.e. the entire duration of the course against which Respondent had also deposited Rs.74,446/-. Since, Respondents son had attended the course only for 5 months, it was only fair that the balance fees be returned to the Respondent and the learned Fora below had therefore, rightly given the necessary relief by directing the Petitioner to pay the Respondent Rs.55,000/- as the balance fee, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties. In Islamic Academy(supra), the Honble Supreme has observed as follows:
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 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 institute even if the student left in midstream.
We agree that in terms of the above judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and its application in our own ruling in Dr.Minathi Rath(supra), Petitioner/Institute could not have collected fees for the entire duration of the course i.e. two years which comes to Rs.94,282/- and out of which Respondent had deposited Rs.74,446/-. Since, Respondents son had studied for 5 months, it would be reasonable for Petitioner/Institute to deduct Rs.47,141/- i.e. the fee for first year(since that seat would remain unutilised) of the course from Rs.74,446/- paid by the Respondent and refund the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- to the Respondent. The order of the State Commission is therefore, modified by reducing the amount of refund of balance fee from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. However, the order regarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs is upheld.
Counsel for Petitioner states that Petitioner/Institute has already paid Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent in terms of this Commissions order dated 21.01.2008. If that be so, Petitioner/Institute is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent as well as Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of default till payment.
The revision petition is disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/