State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Fiitjee Limited vs Harish Soni on 31 January, 2013
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.591 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 13.06.2008.
Date of Decision: 31.01.2013.
FIITJEE Limited, ICES House, 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-
110016.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Harish Soni, R/o Basant Nagar Sukh Sewa Cottage, Near Park, Majitha
Road, Amritsar-143001.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
05.05.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Santosh Kumar, Legal Assistant on behalf of the appellant.
Exparte.
---------------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
FIITJEE Limited, appellant/opposite party (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Harish Soni, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, alleging that the appellant institute prepares the students for getting admission in IIT and other Entrance Exams and has opened its centre at Amritsar last year. The respondent deposited two years advance fee of Rs.1,23,464/- on 15.04.2006 for getting admission in FIITJEE Pinnacle two First Appeal No.591 of 2008 2 years integrated programme. His daughter namely Hitu Soni passed ICSE exam of 10th standard in March, 2006, securing 89% marks from Sacred Heart High School, Amrtisar and studied in the institute of the appellant for one year and was not satisfied by the education provided by the Amritsar Centre and he decided to withdraw his daughter from the appellant institute. A registered A.D. notice dated 26.04.2007 was sent for refund of the remaining fee along with interest and compensation, but no reply was filed.
3. About one month back, he discussed the same with Sh. Dinesh Pinnari, Incharge FIITJEE Centre, Amritsar and also on telephone a number of times, but without any result. Lastly, when he talked to him on his mobile phone, he talked very rudely and asked to knock the door of the court for refund of the fee deposited in advance. The respondent also tried to talk with FIITJEE Academic Head, New Delhi and it was assured that the issue will be solved within a week, but later on he also did not listen. On 15.07.2007, a complaint was lodged to the Core centre on their website and the same was forwarded to the FIITJEE Centre, Amritsar and Delhi head office, but the exercise proved futile. Lot of harassment and mental tension was caused and the appellant institute has adopted unfair trade practice, by taking the entire fee of two years integrated course in advance by mis-representation.
4. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the appellant is an educational institute, imparting quality education to the students, aspiring to take admission in various IITs of the country. The appellant institute was started in the year 1992 and it is No.1 institute all over the country, for sending maximum students to various IITs. Number of students getting admission in various IITs is growing every year. The selection of the students seeking admission in the appellant institute is based on the marks obtained in the admission test and only few students qualify for the same. The daughter of the respondent Hitu Soni appeared in the admission test conducted by the appellant and she qualified and the appellant made it clear to the respondent that the final result will depend upon First Appeal No.591 of 2008 3 the hard work of the student. The faculty members have to undergo compulsory training irrespective of their teaching experience to maintain uniform teaching. All the faculty members are well qualified. The feedback of the students is taken on regular intervals to ensure their satisfaction. The appellant does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway. The appellant is a self financed and self managed institute and runs from the fee collected from the students. As per the agreement, the dispute if any has to be preferred to the arbitrator. The present complaint is totally misuse of the process of law and requires dismissal. A declaration and the consent was signed by the respondent and his daughter and the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention. The respondent has not approached the District Forum with clean hands. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
6. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that as per the law, no service provider can charge fee for a period for which the services are yet to be provided. By charging the fee in lumpsum for a period of two years in advance, the appellant has not only exploited the students' community, but also compels them to stay during the entire course, notwithstanding the quality of their education and training being imparted to them. The daughter of the respondent left the institute after availing the services for a period of one year and the principle of nature justice demand that half of the fee received by the appellant should be refunded. The complaint was accordingly allowed and the appellant was directed to refund an amount of Rs.61,732/- and to pay R.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No.591 of 2008 4
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.05.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant.
9. The respondent has not contested the appeal and was proceeded against exparte.
10. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was admitted that the respondent paid Rs.1,23,464/- inclusive of service tax of Rs.13,200/- and education cess Rs.264/- and the course was spread over two years i.e. May, 2006 to March, 2008. The daughter of the respondent attended the course upto 26.04.2007 for more than one year and during the entire period of one year, she never complained regarding the quality of teaching or the services rendered by the appellant. As per Clauses 6, 7, 10 and 13 of the contract entered between the parties, the fee cannot be refunded. A number of authorities were relied and lastly the authority of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Dr.(Mrs.) Minathi Rath", Revision Petition No.3365 of 2006 and others decided on 14th November, 2011 was relied in which it was held that the fee for one year in advance can be charged and the fee can be refunded after deducting non- refundable service tax for the unattended second year of the course.
11. We have considered the written submissions submitted on behalf of the appellant and have carefully examined the entire material placed on the record.
12. Admittedly, the daughter of the respondent took admission in the appellant institute and paid Rs.1,23,464/- as fee for two years, but she left the course midway after one year. The District Forum allowed the complaint partly, directing the appellant to refund half of the fee paid with compensation and costs. The appellant has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Dr.(Mrs.) Minathi Rath" (supra) and First Appeal No.591 of 2008 5 the order passed by the State Commission was upheld with the following modification:-
(i) The petitioners/Institutes are directed to refund the fees (excluding the service tax) for the unutilized period i.e. the second year to all the Respondents with interest @ 6% p.a., Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs in each case.
(ii) The State Commission's obiter dictum as well as damages of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the petitioners/Institutes, is set aside.
13. In view of the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 05.05.2008 passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellant shall refund the fee excluding the service tax for the unutilized period i.e. the second year to the respondent with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of receipt of the fee till realization. Rs.10,000/- is awarded as litigation expenses.
14. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/ complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.01.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member January 31, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)