Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/204/2021

Avi Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE Chandigarh Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.

:

CC/204/2021

Date of Institution

:

26/03/2021

Date of Decision   

:

17/05/2022

 

Avi Kaushik, FF #3142, Sector-20-D, Chandigarh-160020.

Email:

… Complainant

V E R S U S

FIITJEE Chandigarh Centre, SCO 321-322, First & Second Floor, Sector 35B, Chandigarh-160022. Phone: 9915030117, 9915030116.

 

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :

SURJEET KAUR

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

SURESH KUMAR SARDANA

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

                                                

ARGUED BY

:

Complainant in person.

 

:

None for OP.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

  1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant enrolled in FIITJEE in November, 2017, when he was still finishing his class X to take guidance and assistance from FIITJEE in class XI and class XII. The complainant began his session, commenced the service, in FIITJEE from April 17th 2018. The complainant starts losing faith in FIITJEE after Mid-Year Examinations in school, around September, 2018, when he was in 11th Grade. The complainant displayed poor performance in the tests and assessments by FIITJEE. The complainant suffers poor performance in class XI, scoring an approximate 60% in examination, a fall from 90.4% scored in class X examination. The complainant decides to drop out of FIITJEE in July 2019, when he was in 12th Grade. The complainant’s mother sends email to the Opposite Party request for refund of fee, but the same was not refunded (Annexure C-2). Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
  2.     Opposite Party contested the consumer complaint. In its written reply, Opposite Party has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.01.2010. On merits, the Opposite Party has admitted that the complainant got herself enrolled at its Chandigarh Centre. It has been averred that the total course fee for the IIT JEE two year course program excluding the transportation charges was Rs.1,32,000/-. It has been averred that the declarations and undertaking of the enrollment as such he is not entitled to any refund. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the Opposite Party.
  3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
  4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
  5.     We have heard the arguments on behalf of complainant and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
  6.     In view of the specific objection raised by the OP, the core question that arises for determination is whether the complainant/student is a “Consumer”? After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the answer to the question has to be in the negative.
  7.      A perusal of the complaint reveals that the issue raised by the complainant relates to education, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. In this context, attention can be had to Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, and First Appeal No.1444 of 2013 titled as Atul Suyal Vs. Ryat-Bahra Group of Institutes decided on 22.01.2014 by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, wherein it was held that the Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matters of admission fee etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  8.      It is also important to note that the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 4335 of 2014 titled as Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIIT JEE Limited, decided on 08.12.2014, while placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 09.08.2012 and Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.1.2010, has held that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. 
  9.     Though the complainant has contended that the retention of the fee of the complainant by the OP is on untenable grounds and this amounts to unfair trade practice, yet we regret to accept his contention in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission. We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  10.     Moreover in FIITJEE Vs. Harish Soni: Revision Petition No.2054/2013, Judgment dated 08.10.2015 NCDRC has held as follows: “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. It is not a course comprising different semesters/yearly examination, but it is integrated course it is not a course comprising different semesters/yearly examination, but it is integrated course for two years and in such circumstances in the light of judgments submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, revision petition is to be allowed and impugned order is liable to set aside and complaint is to be dismissed. 
  11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issue mentioned above before a Court of competent jurisdiction/ appropriate Forum.
  12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

Sd/-

Sd/-

 

17/05/2022

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

[Surjeet Kaur]

 

Ls

Member

Presiding Member

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.