State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Fiitjee ( Hyderabad Classes ) Ltd And 3 ... vs Shri Rohit Binjrajka,Rep By His Natural ... on 26 February, 2010
A
P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 1077/2007 against C. C. 977/2006 on the file of the District Forum- III, Hyderabad
Between:
1.
FIITJEE ( Hyderabad Classes ) Ltd
Rep.
by its Managing Director
Mr.
D. K. Goel
C/o
H.no.5-9-14/B, Saifabad,
Opp.
Secretariat, Hyderabad
500 004.
2.
Mr. D. K. Goel,
Managing
Director,
FIITJEE
( Hyderabad
Classes ) Ltd
C/o
H.no.5-9-14/B, Saifabad,
Opp.
Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500004.
3.
Mr. Vijay Waghray
Co-ordinator,
FIITJEE
( Hyderabad Classes
) Ltd
C/o
H.no.5-9-14/B, Saifabad,
Opp.
Secretariat, Hyderabad -00004.
4.
Mr. Nitesh Shah,
Chief
Financial Officer
FIITJEE
( Hyderabad
Classes ) Ltd
C/o
H.no.5-9-14/B, Saifabad,
Opp.
Secretariat, Hyderabad
-500004.
And
Shri Rohit Binjrajka,
Rep by his natural Guardian
Father
Sh. Naresh Binjrajka, S/o G. P.
Agarwal,
R/o H. No.309, Road No.16,
West Marredpally, Secunderabad ..
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. T. K. Pradhan
Counsel for the Respondent
: M/s. Gopi Rajesh
and Associates
CORAM :
Honble Sri
Justice D. Appa Rao Honble President,
Sri Syed
Abdullah Honble Member
And Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member Friday, the Twenty Six Day of February, Two Thousand Ten Oral order : ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member ) ************ The appellants are the unsuccessful opposite partoes in CD. 977/2006 before the District Forum III, Hyderabad where under they were directed to refund Rs.72,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that OP has been running an educational institution to admit the students in the two years integrated course started by the institution. The complainant has attracted to the publicity had joined his son in two years integrated course in July, 2004 with a fond hope that by the coaching his son is secured good rank in FIIT JEE and in IIT course. At the time of admission OP 1 had collected lump sum amount of Rs.1,04,000/- towards for two years integrated course. At the time of admission, the OPs have assured quality of education through expert faculty members. Though the complainant had secured 75% marks in Xth class with CBSE syllabus but due to defective and non-performing teaching standards his son became weak in his studies. The complainant had no other alternative except to withdraw his son from OP 1 institute within a period of three months and he was admitted in another institution where his performance was proved to be good. The complaint sent a letter dt.24.12.2004 to OP for refund of the fee paid by him for which a reply dt.5.1.2005 was sent refusing to refund the amount. A legal notice dt.12.01.2006 was issued requesting them to deduct Rs.13,000/- and return the remaining amount with interest. Even then the OPs did not return the amount. hence the complaint.
The OPs 1 to 3 filed their version and stated that the complainants son had appeared for admission test conducted by OP on 18.07.2004 and on qualifying he was admitted into previous integrated coaching programme. This institution had appointed the faculty members of high standard to give proper coaching. The OP cannot fill up any vacancy created against any student who leaves in the middle of the course . The complainant is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause. The complainant had signed the terms and conditions as such he has to abide to the conditions therefore he is not entitled to seek for refund of the amount.
In order to prove the case the complainant along with his evidence affidavit filed Ex. A1 to A9 documents. No documents were filed by the respondent/ OPs After going through the evidence and admissions of the OPs the District Forum gave a finding that the non refunding of the entire amount to the candidate who attended only for two months would amounts to unlawful enrichment and thereby ordered refund of fee paid by deducting Rs.32,000/- as per the Fee plan shown in ( EXA1 ) by the Institute itself and thereby ordered for refund of Rs.72,000/- out of Rs.1,04,000/- without any interest thereon.
Point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity ?
The learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing of the appeal has pointed out that when the terms and conditions of the institute were signed and accepted by the complainant in securing admission he cannot seek for refund of any amount. It is also contended that the institution will suffer loss in case the students leaves the institution in the middle of the course and the institution will not be in a position to admit other student for the remaining period. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to various decisions mentioned in on the grounds of appeal in support of the stand taken by him, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a recent decision of the National Commission in Sehgal School of competition Vs. Dalbirsingh reported in III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC) in which it was held that incorporating a clause saying that fees once paid is not refundable is unconscionable, unfair and not enforceable in view of the fact that as per public notice issued by UGC all institutes are directed to refund money of students for the period not attended by the students.
It is an undisputed fact that the complainants son had joined in two years integrated course by paying a lump sum payment of Rs.1,04,000/-
towards fee and within three months period itself for reasons best known he had withdrawn from the institution and admitted elsewhere. The moot question is whether the OP can withhold the total school fee paid for the two years when the complainants son had discontinued the course by joining elsewhere. No doubt, the OP had taken an undertaking from the father of the student not to claim the amount in the event of discontinuing the course in the middle and that in case of any dispute the matter is to be resolved by an arbitration clause.
In the earlier decisions, it was held that the institute need not refund the amount paid towards course fee in case the student withdraws from the institution or discontinue in the middle of the course. But, in the recent decision of the National Commission on the basis of the UGC guidelines it was held that the Ministry of Human Resources Development and UGC have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities in the public interest shall maintain the waiting list of students/ candidates and in the event of any student admitted withdraws before the starting of the course the waited listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/-
shall be refunded and retuned by the institution/University to the student or candidate who had withdrawn from the course. In view of the guidelines, it was held that the institution/University is bound to refund the fee that was paid for the entire course. The said guidelines also applies to the OPs institution.
In the present case, the complainants son had paid Rs.1,04,000/- towards previous course fee but he had attending only for a period of three months and discontinued thereafter. So as per the fee plan devised by the institution in its prospectus Ex. A1, it would be reasonable to deduct Rs.32,000/-
for the period of three months and direct to refund the remaining amount. the impugned order cannot be considered as arbitrary and illegal warranting any interference. The appeal is devoid of merits.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Distinct Forum as justified. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER DT :
26.02.2010.