Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fiitjee in Fiitjee Ltd. vs Harish Soni on 8 October, 2015Matching Fragments
7. We have examined he entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The admitted facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant took admission in a two-year integrated coaching programme run by the petitioner FIITJEE Ltd. and she attended the classes for a period of one year only. The consumer fora below have directed that half of the fee amount deposited, i.e., fee for second year should be refunded to the complainants. The basic issue that arises for our consideration is whether it is justified to allow refund of fees for the remaining part of the course or not?
11. Based on the discussion above and respectfully following the judgment of this Commission in "FIIT JEE Ltd. vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath" [supra], I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below and hence I do not find any ground to interfere with these orders in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER DATED : 17.7.2015 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 591 of 2008 - Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
13. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 31.1.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.591 of 2008 - FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni and order of District forum dated 5.5.2008 passed in Complaint No.738 of 2007 - Harish Soni Vs. FIIT JEE is set aside and complaint stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(K.S. CHAUDHARI) PRESIDING MEMBER DATED : 17.7.2015 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI In R.P. No. 2054 of 2013 - FIITJEE Ltd Vs. Harish Soni arguments were heard on 14.5.2015 by our Bench. Judgment was dictated by Hon'ble Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member and sent for approval of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member sent dissenting judgment. As Members of the Bench differ in their opinion, the matter may be placed before Hon'ble President, NCDRC under Section 20(i)(iii) of the C.P. Act for appropriate directions. The legal question is:
"5. The important information contained in the enrollment form signed by the complainant as well as his father, at the time the complainant took admission in the coaching course, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
"FIITJEE starts making arrangements of infrastructure, faculty & other resources about six months before commencement of financial year. FIITJEE admits students as per its capacity plans (subject to unforeseen circumstances & usual organizational risks) therefore each student taking admission has to pay complete fee under all circumstances i.e. ever if he/she discontinues for any reason whatsoever or parents/guardians be transferred. Not all students who sit in our admission test are offered admission, therefore, you & parents have to be very sure before taking admission as you have to pay complete fee under all circumstances.