State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rahul Sardana vs Pushpinder Kumar Sharma on 6 June, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 174 of 2013 Date of Institution : 23.04.2013 Date of Decision : 06.06.2013 1. Rahul Sardana, Prop. M/s Sardana Physics Classes, SCO No.18, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Sardana Physics Classes, SCO No.18, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Pushpinder Kumar Sharma son of Siri Ram Sharma, Resident of House No.3049-A, Sector 52, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Ram Krishan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.04.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed to make refund of an amount of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of service of the legal notice i.e. 23.10.2012 till realization. OPs shall also make payment of an amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of service of the legal notice i.e. 23.10.2012 till realization.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Rishabh Sharma, son of the complainant, student of 11th class, took admission in Sardana Physics Classes, for expert coaching, for the year 2012-2013. On the assurance of Opposite Party No.1, an amount of Rs.25,000/-, as fees, was deposited, by the complainant, in two installments, vide receipts Annexures C-1 and C-2. It was stated that the son of the complainant and other students, were subjected to various tests, from time to time, but the same were not conducted, as per the assurance given by the Opposite Parties.
It was further stated that the son of the complainant, requested the Opposite Parties, to clear his doubts/queries, in the subject being taught, but they evaded/refused to answer the same, on one pretext or the other, due to which, he could not improve his knowledge, on account of the teaching imparted by them. It was further stated that the attitude/method of coaching of the Opposite Parties, resulted into deterioration, in the knowledge of the son of the complainant, as depicted in the results of tests, copies whereof are Annexures C-3 to C-6. The complainant being dissatisfied, with the coaching, provided by the Opposite Parties, to his son, also met Opposite Party No.1, a number of times, and requested him to give proper coaching and to remove the doubts/queries of his son, but he did not care. It was further stated that due to the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the son of the complainant, was forced to discontinue the coaching classes w.e.f. 07.10.2012. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were requested to refund the fees, paid by the complainant, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, but they did not do so. A legal notice dated 22.10.2012, was also served upon Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-, paid as fees, for coaching aforesaid; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, on account of deficiency in service, adopting unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment; interest @18% P.A., on the aforesaid amounts, from 07.10.2012, till realization; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in his written version, admitted that the son of the complainant took admission, in Sardana Physics Classes, for expert coaching, for the year 2012-2013, and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as fees, out of the total fees of Rs.30,000/-in two installments, vide receipts Annexures C-1 and C-2. It was stated that an amount of Rs.5,000/-, was given as scholarship concession, as the complainant promised to produce the CGPA score/marksheet, of his son, after declaration of his 10th class result, but the same was never produced. It was further stated that the Institute of the Opposite Parties, is not a School or a College, but a Coaching Institute, where a limited number of students are admitted in a batch, so that proper attention could be given to them. It was further stated that the son of the complainant never came up with any doubts/queries, during the coaching classes. It was further stated that the son of the complainant had been improving, as was evident from Test 2 conducted on 18 July, 2012 (Level: Entrance/Difficult) Annexure R-2. It was further stated that had the son of the complainant been dissatisfied with the coaching, then he would not have paid the second installment of fees, after about two months of attending the classes. It was further stated that, at the time of taking admission, the complainant and his son, after filling in the enrollment form, had undertaken and declared that they understood that admission fee/registration fee and other charges, once paid, were neither refundable nor adjustable, under any circumstances, either in full or in part. It was further stated that even in the Fee Structure/2012-2013 Annexure R-1, it was clearly mentioned that no refund request was to be accepted four months after the commencement of regular classes/course/batch. It was further stated that the son of the complainant, attended the coaching classes, for a period of about five and a half months. It was further stated that the coaching course was for full one year, and the fees was charged from the complainant, for one year only. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were ready to provide coaching to the son of the complainant, but he left the course, of his own accord, and, as such, neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, submitted that, no doubt, the son of the complainant, took admission, in the Institute of the Opposite Parties, for expert coaching, for the year 2012-2013, and paid fees, in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, in two installments. He further submitted that, at the time of joining the course, an enrollment form was filled in, which was signed by the complainant and his son, after admitting the terms and conditions thereof, to be correct. He further submitted that, as per the declaration given by the complainant, and his son, in the said enrollment form, the admission fee/registration fee and other charges, once paid, were neither refundable nor adjustable, under any circumstances, either in full or in part. He further submitted that the son of the complainant, attended the coaching classes, aforesaid, for about five and a half months, and he was improving. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant concocted a story, that the doubts of his son, were not cleared by the Opposite Parties, due to which he could not improve his knowledge, on account of the teaching imparted by them. He further submitted that since the son of the complainant, left the course, after studying for a period of about five and a half months, whereas, the Opposite Parties were ready to give him coaching, he was not entitled to the refund of fees, and, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on their (Opposite Parties) part. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the appellants/ Opposite Parties, indulged into unfair trade practice, as they got deposited the entire fees, for the course of one year, in which the son of the complainant, took admission. He further submitted that, no doubt, the terms and conditions contained, in the enrollment form aforesaid, were accepted and signed by the complainant, and his son, as they had no other meaningful choice, than to do so. He further submitted that the appellants/ Opposite Parties were not entitled to retain the fees, for the period, the coaching was not given to the son of the complainant, by them. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10. Admittedly, the son of the complainant took admission, in Sardana Physics Classes, for expert coaching, for the year 2012-2013. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that these coaching classes were to run for one year. Fees, in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, was deposited, in two installments, vide Annexures C-1 and C-2, by the complainant. Had the teaching being imparted, by the appellants/Opposite Parties, been not upto the mark, then the complainant, would not have deposited the second installment of fees, after about two months, of attending the classes. In Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka = (2003) 6 SCC 696, the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, held as under:-
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. If any educational institution has collected 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 a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall 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. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.
11. The principle of law, laid down, in Islamic Academy of Education`s case (supra), being binding on all the Courts, as also the Tribunals, in the Country, would supersede the bilateral Agreement, between the parties, if the terms and conditions thereof, ran contrary to the same. From the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, it is evident, that the Opposite Parties, could charge fees, only for one year, if there was no semester system and for one semester, if there was a semester system. In the instant case, the appellants/Opposite Parties only charged fees, from the complainant for one year, for which duration, the course was to run. Since the Opposite Parties, were running the coaching classes, there was no semester or trimester system, being followed by them. At the most, the Opposite Parties, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, could charge fees, from the son of the complainant, for a period of one year, as there was no semester or trimester system, being followed by them. By charging the fees for one year, in two installments, from the son of the complainant, the Opposite Parties, did not indulge into unfair trade practice.
12. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to the refund of fees, if so, for which period. As stated above, the son of the complainant had attended the coaching classes, for about five and a half months. Thereafter, he left the coaching classes, and asked for the refund of fees. According to the complainant, the Opposite Parties, were not dispelling the doubts and queries, of his son. Had the son of the complainant, been dissatisfied, with the teaching imparted by the appellants/Opposite Parties, then he would not have paid the second installment of fees, after about two and a half months, of attending the coaching classes. Under these circumstances, such allegation of the complainant, is not supported by any evidence. It could be said that there was no cause of grievance, on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties. The son of the complainant left the coaching, of his own accord, especially, when the Opposite Parties were ready to impart teaching to him. In FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rathi, Revision Petition No.3365 of 2006 decided on 14.11.2011=IV (2006) CPJ 255, and FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. B.B. Popli, Revision Petition No.1805 of 2007, decided on 14.11.2011, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that, in case, the course was for the period of two years, and the Coaching Institute, gets deposited the fees, for the entire course period, and the student leaves the course midway, then it is entitled to retain the fees for the period of one year and is liable to refund the same, for the second year. In the instant case, as stated above, fees was only charged by the Opposite Parties, for one year, and, as such, the question of refund of the same, by them, to the complainant, after his son had studied for about five and a half months, did not at all arise. The District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant was entitled to the refund of half of the amount of fees, especially, when the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also wrong, in awarding compensation, to the complainant. The order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
June 6, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg