Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/901/2017

FIITJEE Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhavya Vinit S/O Rajeev Vinit - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Hisariya

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 901/2017

 

FIITJEE LTD., 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi through its A.R. Ashish Kr.Agarwal & ors.

Vs.

Bhavya Vineet s/o Rajeev Vineet & Rajeev Vineet s/o Prithviraj Vineet both r/o 647 Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 8.3.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Dinesh Hissaria counsel for the appellants

Mr.U.K.Pradhan counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the

2

 

District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 12.6.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per conditions agreed between the parties the fee was not refundable and further more the seat was remained vacant hence, the order of the Forum below is not justified.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the consumer respondent deposited the fee on 25.2.2011 for two year class room programme and due to transfer of the parents refund was seek vide letter dated 19.4.2011 which was declined by the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per condition no. 6 & 7 the fee was not refundable. There is no dispute about

3

 

the fact that as per the condition fee once paid was not refundable but it is not in dispute that after only two months the consumer has asked for refund.

 

The contention of the appellant is that no new student was introduced in the batch and seat was remained vacant and reliance has been placed on III (2014) CPJ 27 (NC) Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta where fee was not refunded but the facts of the case are quite different as only 10% of the tution fee was charged and the National Commission found no justification for refund of the amount but here in the present case this is not the case between the parties that only 10% of the tution fee was deposited but as per contention of the consumer total fee was deposited which is not disputed by the appellant also.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that the seat remained vacant hence, the fee was not refundable. To support this contention affidavit of Aashish Kumar Agarwal DGM HRD is submitted and reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2054/2013 FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni and the

4

 

contention of the appellant is that appeal be allowed.

 

In Harish Soni's case it has been held as under:

 

“ As regards the term stipulating that the student withdrawing from the coaching class midway will not be entitled to seek any refund of the fee deposited by him being an unfair trade practice, we are of the view that in a case where the seat vacated on account of withdrawal by a student during the currency of the course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against the vacant seat, the refusal of the coaching institute to refund the fee cannot be said to be an unfair trade practice, though such a term may constitute an unfair trade practice in a case where the coaching institute admits a student in place of the student who withdraws midway from the coaching course and thereby suffers no financial loss.”

 

In the light of above in the present matter the appellant could not show that the seat was remained vacant. In the above matter the batch was of 44 students whereas after leaving of the course by one student only 43 students were remained but in the present matter no such number is disclosed before the

 

 

5

 

Forum below and even during course of arguments the counsel for the appellant could not show the strength of the batch.

 

In view of the above when the appellant could not show that the seat remained vacant, the Forum below has rightly allowed the complaint. There is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm