State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Fiitjee Ltd. vs Pradeep Kumar on 17 February, 2023
FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 12.05.2014
Date of hearing: 13.12.2022
Date of Decision: 17.02.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 468/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
FIITJEE Ltd.,
29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016,
Through It's A.R.
Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal
(Through: Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
Pradeep Kumar,
R/o 213/8, Kirpal Nagar,
Rohtak-110034
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE Ms. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE Mr. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
ALLOWED Page 1 of 13
FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
Present: Mr. Dharmender Kumar (Enrl. No.-D/7510/2021, Ph. No.-
8287246586), proxy counsel for Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, counsel
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
PER : MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The complainant got his son Ravi Mann admitted in the respondent institute on 03.07.2011 and paid Rs.63,588/- plus Rs.11,000/- towards two years weekend classroom programme. His son attended the classes from 12.06.2011 to 18.03.2012. He was not satisfied with the coaching of the institute. His son was having some problem in copying from the blackboard and the teachers were not cooperating with him, hence he decided to withdraw his son and requested to refund one year fees vide his letter dated 17.04.2012. The institute declined to refund this fee hence he approached this forum."
2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 01.04.2014, whereby it has observed & held as under:
"Both the parties led their evidence on affidavit and filed documents. We have heard the arguments. There is no force in the preliminary objections raised by the respondent. Reference to the clause of depute of arbitrator is an alternate mechanism ALLOWED Page 2 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023 for redressal of disputes and approaching the consumer forum is an option open to the complainant in all circumstances. It is over and above the provisions of reference to the arbitration. This case is clearly covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education & Ors. that coaching cannot charge advance fees. Reference is placed on the following finding by the National Commission that:
"Coaching institutions may not be conventional, educational institutions but since they provide coaching and training to students of an educational nature to equip them for higher studies in specialized educational institutions, the same principles that apply to educational institutions would also apply to these institutions in respect of the fees charged by them including advance fees. In any case, respondents are consumers and the petitioners are service providers. Petitioners are rendering service for consideration and fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would, thus, override any bilateral agreement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the considered view that respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner/institute could not have charged full advance fees for two years and could have charged prescribed fees for one semester/year. In the instant cases, since the petitioner/institutions do not follow the semester system, they could have only charged advance fees for one year. In view of these facts the respondents are entitled ALLOWED Page 3 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023 to get refund of the fees after deducting the non refundable service tax for the unattended second year of the course."
In view of this judgment we hold that respondent institute was deficient in service in not refunding the advance course fees received for the second year of the programme Rs.11,000/- was paid by the student for course material. He was supplied course material for one year only because before start of the second year he dropped. Hence he is entitled to refund of 50% of the fees paid for the course material. Similarly he paid Rs.63,000/- for two years. He is entitled to refund of 50% of the course fee which was charged in advance for the second year of the course. We hereby order that OP shall pay an amount of Rs.37,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. Complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to him which shall be inclusive of litigation expenses."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, contending there is no bar against the Institute to charge advance fees or liability to refund the same in case student leave the course in between and son of the respondent voluntarily withdrew himself from classes run by appellant of her own accord and therefore, no fault could be attributed to appellant.
ALLOWED Page 4 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed the reply to the present appeal wherein, he has submitted that his son left the coaching after the end of first year as the same was not upto the mark. Thereafter, his request for refund of the one year coaching fee was denied by the coaching institute. Further, he has submitted that there is no error in the impugned Judgment as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said Judgment.
5. Despite orders dated 26.04.2022 and 13.12.2022, respondent has not filed two pager written synopsis. However, the appellant has filed written arguments along with the judgments in order to support his case which are as follows:
a) Kalka Institute for Rese. and Advance Studies and Ors. Vs. Hitesh Kumar and Ors.
LPA No. 416/2004, Judgment dated 01.02.2006, in the High Court of Delhi.
b) Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam RP No. 270/2006, Order dated 29.01.2010, NCDRC.
c) FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta RP NO. 4476/2013, Order dated 21.05.2014, NCDRC. ALLOWED Page 5 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
d) Globsyn Business School Vs. Mayuri Ghosh RP No. 4464/2012, Order dated 31.05.13, NCDRC.
e) FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni RP No. 2054/2013, decided on 08.10.2015, NCDRC.
f) FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Varjeet Walia RP No. 1375/2014, decided on 06.07.2015, NCDRC.
g) FIITJEE Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pramod Pareek RP No. 462/2013, decided on 10.07.2020, NCDRC.
h) Amit Srivastava Vs. Anurag Aggarwal First Appeal-290/2017, date of decision 13.07.2017, SCDRC, Delhi.
6. We have perused the Appeal and Impugned Order including record of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III (West District), 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, (Behind Janak Cinema) Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
7. On perusal of the record, we find that son of the respondent, deposited Rs.63,588/- and Rs.11,000/- on 09.06.2011 with the appellant for two year classroom programme, with 90% scholarship on 10th Board basis. The enrollment form has been duly signed by Sh. Ravi Kumar son of the respondent and Sh. ALLOWED Page 6 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023 Pradeep Kumar, the respondent. The relevant declarations no. 6, 7 & 21 at page 6 of the said enrollment form reads as under:
Para 6: I understand that if I leave the institute before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including transfer of parents/guardians/ill health of self or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/engineering college etc., or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc. I or my parent/guardian shall have no claim for refund of fees.
Para 7: In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reason be.
Para 21: I/we, the parent/guardian and/or the student, severally and jointly declare that I/We have read and understood at all clauses contained in the Declaration on Enrolment Form and agree to abide by them without any reservation or ambiguity.
8. The respondent's son attended the classes w.e.f. 12.06.2011 to 18.03.2012 and thereafter decided to leave the appellant institute and demanded the fee back.
ALLOWED Page 7 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on Kalka Institute for Rese. and Advance Studies Vs. Hitesh Kumar (Supra), wherein it has been held that since petitioner attended classes for about one month and he applied for withdrawal much after 16.08.2020, the fee was not refundable. It was mentioned in the information bulletin that if a student applies for withdrawal of admission on or before 16.08.2020, the total fee will be refundable after deducting 20%, but where an application for withdrawal of admission is made after 16.08.2000, no refund of fees except security deposit will be made.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the order dated 29.01.2010 of NCDRC in the matter of "Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam", wherein it has been held 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-standard lessons. It was his responsibility to has ascertained the details with regard to running of the course by the institute before depositing the course fee for being enrolled. In any ALLOWED Page 8 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023 case the respondent/complainant was a willing to the agreement that the course fee will not be refunded, even if he withdrew in the mid-stream
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on FIITJEE Ltd.
Vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta, RP No. 4476 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2014. Paras 9 & 10 of the said order reads as under:
Para 9: In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education V. 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/back 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 Nationalized 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.
Para 10: In the instant case, the complainants have not established anywhere whether the petitioner performed any act, which may be termed as deficiency in service or negligence in duty in any manner. Moreover, the petitioners have only charged the infrastructure cost fee and admission fee and 10% of the tuition fees from the student. There is no justification for the refund of this fee, if the student has left the course midstream.ALLOWED Page 9 of 13
FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on "Globsyn Business School Vs. Mayuri Ghosh". We find that the facts of the case cited by the petitioner are quite different from the facts of the case in hand.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on "FIITJEE Ltd.
Vs. Harish Soni". Order dated 08.10.2015 of Hon'ble NCDRC in RP No. 2054 of 2013, mentions that the daughter of complainant took admission in "FITJEE Pinnacle" two year integrated programme. She studied for one year, but being not satisfied by the education provided by them, decided to withdraw from the said institute. The District Forum after taking into the evidence of the parties partly allowed the complainant and directed OP to refund an amount of Rs.61,732/-, being 50% of the total amount deposited by the complainant. Further, State Commission modified the order of District Forum by directing that petitioner/OP shall refund fees, excluding the service tax for the unutilized period i.e. the second year with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of receipt till realization. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded to the complainant as litigation expenses.
ALLOWED Page 10 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023 The complainant has placed on record the affidavit of its Managing Director Shri Dinesh Kumar Goel, stating therein that no student was enrolled against the seat vacated by the daughter of the respondent during the tenure of the entire course at any point of time. He has further stated that to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and keeping in mind the interest of students, the petitioner company does not fulfill the vacancy created by a student who leaves the course in midway.
National Commission, in the light of majority judgment has held that the complainant is not entitled to refund of the fee for the remaining period of one year and the revision petition filed the petitioner is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on "FIITJEE Ltd.
Vs. Varjeet Walia", "FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Pramod Pareek" & "Amit Srivastava Vs. Anurag Aggarwal", in support of his case.
15. We find that respondent has not given any reasonable justification or shown any cogent evidence in support of the contention that his son left the coaching after the end of first year, as coaching given by the appellant institute was not upto the mark. Further, ALLOWED Page 11 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023 respondent and his son have signed the enrollment form alongwith the declaration/terms and conditions, which includes the clause, the fees once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be. The appellant has also stated that to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard and thereby, keeping in mind the students interest it does not fill the vacancy created against any student who leaves the course midway. This matter is similar to the case relied by the counsel for the appellant in the case titled as "FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni", decided on 08.10.2015 of Hon'ble NCDRC in RP No. 2054 of 2013 wherein it has been held that the complainant is not entitled to refund of the fee for the remaining period of one year. The case of the appellant is further supported by the findings in the order dated 29.01.2010 of NCDRC in the matter of "Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam".
16. Therefore, in view of above findings, we hold that the respondent is not entitled to refund of the fee for the remaining period of one year.
17. For that reason, we set aside the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. ALLOWED Page 12 of 13 FA/468/2014 FIITJEE LTD. VS PRADEEP KUMAR. DOD : 17.02.2023
18. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. FDR, if any, be released in favour of the Appellant.
19. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
20. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On :
17.02.2023 ALLOWED Page 13 of 13