National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Fiitjee Ltd. vs Jagdish Awatram Chawla on 20 December, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 722 OF 2018 IN RP/2020/2018 1. FIITJEE LTD. ...........Appellants(s) Versus 1. JAGDISH AWATRAM CHAWLA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : MR. MUKESH M. GOEL For the Respondent :
Dated : 20 Dec 2018 ORDER
MA / 722 / 2018 ( for restoration)
Heard. In the interest of justice and for the reasons given in the application, the order dated 26.11.2018 is recalled and revision petition is restored to its original number.
Revision Petition (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur ( in short, the State Commission) dated 21.04.2018 in FA No.A/15/603 passed against the order of Nagpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( in short, the District Forum ) dated 15.09.2015 in complaint no. 117 of 2014.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent who is the complainant before the District Forum filed a complaint with the allegation and contentions that his son Gaurav, after he completed his 10th standard examination from reputed school Jain International School, Nagpur, was counselled by the petitioner in a counselling session alongwith other students and the representative of the petitioner advised him to get enrolled for Pinnacle Programme conducted by the petitioner. As per this advise, the respondent got his son admitted in science stream in the school and joined the Pinnacle Programme conducted by the petitioner. Before taking the admission of his son for the Pinnacle Programme, the petitioner also conducted a test and gave admission on the basis of the admission result. The petitioner also took the complete payment for the programme for the first year. The enrolment form was filled and other formalities were also completed. The respondent was also made to sign on the blank enrolment form. His son also signed the blank form and the respondent was never informed about the declaration mentioned in the enrolment form. The respondent deposited a sum of Rs.1,91,155/- on the commencement of the course and also handed over two post dated cheques of Rs.77,736/- and Rs.14,100/- dated 02.02.2014 as security for remaining fees payable in the year 2014. His son attended the classes from 10.06.2013 to 17.06.2013. His son found it difficult to understand the science course and was getting depressed. The petitioner conducted re-counselling of his son and then suggested him to admit his son in the commerce stream instead of science stream. According to the advise of the petitioner, Gaurav was shifted from science stream to commerce stream. On the request of the respondent to provide coaching to his son in commerce stream, the petitioner refused to do, so stating that they do not conduct any coaching classes for commerce stream. His request for refund of his fees was also declined and hence the complaint seeking refund of total sum of Rs.3,91,115/- which includes fees, interest, litigation cost and compensation for physical and mental harassment.
3. The District Forum issued notice on his complaint to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that notice was duly served upon the petitioner. The plea is that it got misplaced and mixed up with other papers and, therefore, the petitioner lost sight of it. However, since the petitioner did not attend the proceedings before the District Forum and did not controvert the contentions of the respondent, the District Forum on the basis of un-contradicted testimony of the respondent allowed the complaint and passed the following order:
"The complaint of the complainant filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby partly dismissed.
The opposite party is directed to refund fees amount of Rs.1,91,955/- to the complainant and also pay it with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 29.07.2013 i.e. from the date of denial by opposite party through reply at Document No.3 till its realization.
The opposite party shall pay to the complainant an amount ofRs.5000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.3000/- towards cost of complaint.
The opposite party shall comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of order First copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost."
4. This order is impugned by the petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal finding no illegality in the order of the District Forum.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision petition has been filed. Same contentions have been raised in the revision petition which had been raised and dealt with by the two foras below. First argument is that clause in the enrolment form clearly states that in case the student leaves the course in middle, the fee is non-refundable. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that son of respondent left the course in-between is unfounded and baseless, firstly, because no contention has been raised and no evidence had been led to this fact by the petitioner before the District Forum and, therefore, there is no evidence in support of this contention. The fact proved on record by the respondent clearly shows that respondent had acted on the advise of the representative of the petitioner. During the counselling of his son on first occasion, he advised his son to join the science stream and on second advise / re-counselling, the representative of the petitioner advised him for joining the commerce stream. Respondent and his son had acted on the counselling given by the petitioner. On the advise of the representative of the petitioner for change of course, his son changed the stream from science to commerce and when a request was made to the petitioner to give coaching to his son in the commerce steam, for which the petitioner showed his inability, it cannot be said that it is the son of the respondent who left the course. He attended the course for one week but could not attend it further because as per the counselling given by the petitioner, he was made to change his stream from science stream to commerce stream.
6. As regards the inability of the petitioner to appear before the District Forum is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner were duly served and they chose not to appear. The explanation which has come forward is not reasonable.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held that Courts can interfere while exercising jurisdiction under revision petitions only where there exists any illegality or injustice apparently seems to have been done. The relevant para is reproduced above.
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
8. Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the order. Also, there is no injustice seems to have been inflicted upon the petitioner. There was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and petitioner was made to pay for said deficiency and to refund the money, which the petitioner had received from the respondent.
9. In view of the above discussion, Revision Petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER