Delhi

StateCommission

FA/24/2014

FIITJEE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABHISHEK KR. MEENA - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                      Date of Decision :   29.02.2016

                   Date of arguments heard : 9.02.2016

First Appeal No. 24/2014

In the matter of

FIITJEE LTD.

29-A, kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar

New Delhi- 110 016

Through It’s A.R.

Sh. Ashish Kr. Aggarwal

……    Appellant

Vs.

 

ABHISHEK KUMAR MEENA

S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar

R/o B/551, Gali No.4

Rajbeer Colony

Delhi-110096

 

Through his father and natural

Guardian Sh. Ashok Kumar

•  

CORAM

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

S.C. Jain (Member)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.       Being dissatisfied with order dated 7.11.13 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (East) in CC No.483/13, OP has come in the present appeal. The facts giving rise to the filing of the complaint was that the respondent/complainant took admission in the coaching centre of appellant/OP for preparation of IIT Competition Admission Test and paid Rs.1,99,202/- in the year 2012. The study was not satisfactory and his ability to get passing marks in the school did not improve which put a question mark on the guidance of the institute. Because of late start of classes, the appellant hurried in covering the course. In March, 13 due to school examinations, complainant could not attend any class. He sought refund of the fees with interest @10%, compensation of Rs.2 lacs and litigations costs of Rs.25,000/-.

2. In reply the appellant/OP stated that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Respondent/complainant took the admission at Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar, Delhi. It was not under the jurisdiction of the said Forum. There was no deficiency in service. The course was run successfully and no student left the course in the midway except the complainant. There was arbitration clause.
3. After taking evidence by way of affidavit and hearing the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the course was Two years class room program for ITI-JEE. The OP nowhere here stated on oath that claimant’s assertion regarding non imparting of education was not true. They have not filed any evidence to show that the performance of complainant improved with the training. On the contrary complainant filed his mark-sheets that there was a fall in his performance at the school level. The OP did not come forward with the case that complainant was not attending classes or was not taking interest in education.
4. Regarding territorial jurisdiction, the District Forum found that Delhi was one district and relied upon the decision of this Commission in ‘Holly Family’  case. Arbitration clause was not a bar because remedy under Consumer Protection Act is in addition and in derogate  as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Fair Engineers India Ltd. Vs.  N.K. Modi
5. On merits the District Forum found that payment of Rs.11,000/- towards study material can not be refunded. Admission fee of Rs.50,562 + Tuition fee of Rs.1,28,652/- required proportionate adjustment in the ratio of classes attended by the complainant and the rest of the duration of the course which he had not availed. The complainant attended classes for almost four months out of two years and accordingly deduction of Rs.28,000/- from tuition fee and Rs.10,000/- from admission fee was allowed. In nutshell the amount to be retained by OP came to Rs.49,000/- and the OP was directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- within 45 days failing which OP was to pay interest @9%. No compensation and costs of litigation was allowed.
6. In appeal the contention of the appellant is that as per terms & conditions of enrollment form, the student have to pay complete fee under the circumstances even if he discontinued for any reasons whatsoever. Conditions No. 6 & 7 specifically provided that fees once paid was not refundable which declaration was signed by the respondent. The appellant relied upon decision of this Commission in RP No. 270/2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbal Sam decided on 29.01.10 where while ordering refund of fees, the District Forum ordered the refund of tax also. There is no bar to charge advance fees or liability to refund the fees in case student left the course in between as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697.
7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments of Counsel for the appellant.
8. None appear for the respondent to address arguments.
9. By now the law is well settled that education is not a commodity and education institutions do not provide any service, so they are not amenable to jurisdiction of Consumer Court as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur 2010(11)SCC 199 and Civil Appeal No.22532/2012 titled as P.T. Kaushi & Ors. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust decided on 9.8.12  
10. So we put it to the Counsel for the appellant that present appeal can be allowed and complaint can be dismissed with liberty to the respondent to seek remedy before the Civil Court but the Counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above by submitting that the Coaching Institutions are not conventional education institutions.
11. So we do not agree with the said submission in view of observations of the National Commission in Fitjee Limited Vs. Dr. Minathi Rath Vol I (2012) CPJ 194. In para 14 it was observed that coaching institute provide training to equip the student for higher studies in specialized Educational Institutions. So the same principle which apply to educational institutions would also apply to coaching institutions.
12. As regards decision of the National Commission in RP No.2054/13 titled as FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni decided on 8.10.15 to make out that coaching institutes are justified in retaining the fees view of the terms and conditions it may be observed that once it is held that the Consumer Court does not have justification, there does not remain any scope for deciding the matter on merits. The National Commission could not differ and has not differed with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand and P.T. Kaushi Supra.
13. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that in no case the Consumer Court have given options to take remedy before the Civil Court, in educational institution. The said submissions is thoughnot tenable in view of the decision of National Commission in RP No.1684/2009 titled as Registrar, GG Singh University Vs. Ms. Tanvi decided on 29.1.15. In the said case the National Commission gave liberty to seek redressal of her grievances befor the Forum or Civil Court as per law after excluding the time consumed in proceedings under Consumer Protection Act as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. TSG Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1
14. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is accepted on technical ground that the Consumer Court has no jurisdiction. Complaint of the respondent/complainant is dismissed. However the respondent is given liberty to seek redressal of his grievances before any other Forum or Civil Court as per law within a period of 90 days from this decision. He may take advantage of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. TSG Industrial Institute Supra.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and to the District Forum (Saini Enclave), New Delhi for information.

File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

Member