BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.       Master Shubham Sharma, through his father and natural guardian Subhash Sharma.

2.       Subhash Sharma son of Sh.Lachman Dass Sharma

          Both resident of H.No.82, New Milap Nagar, Ambala      City, Haryana.

…..Complainants

                                      V E R S U S

1.       FIITJEE Limited, Chandigarh Centre, SCO No.321-322, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Centre Head.

2.       FIITJEE Limited, FIITJEE House, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, Near Hauz Khas Bus Terminal, Delhi (110016), through its Managing Director.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Navin Gupta, Counsel for the complainants.

                        Sh.Roopesh Kanwar, Counsel for the OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, complainant No.1 took admission on 20.5.2011 in 2 year classroom programme (2011-2013) for IIT-JEE with OP No.1 and paid Rs.1,50,530/- as fee, in advance, for full 2 years course.  At the time of admission, the OPs assured to provide proper guidance, best coaching and prepare complainant No.1 for the competitive examinations for IIT-JEE and other engineering courses. It has been further stated that the complainant No.1 attended the classes from 21.5.2011 to 24.7.2011 and thereafter approached OP-1 with complaint about inadequate & faulty technique of teaching by its faculty as well as non supportive attitude, but to no avail.  As such, the complainant No.1  left the course and sent a communication to the OPs for the refund of his fees, which they refused. Hence, this complaint.

2]             OPs No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that the complainant opted for two year classroom program (2011-13) for IITJEE after duly satisfying themselves about the classroom program offered by OPs.  It has also been pleaded that the complainant and his son was clearly told that the final outcome will depend on hard work and motivation of complainant No.1. The averments about faulty technique of teaching and non supportive attitude of the teachers have been denied by the OPs. It has been further pleaded that complainant No.2 had a personal talk with OP No.1 on 31.7.2011 and OP No.1 clearly explained that the complainant No.1 has the minimum attendance amongst the students in his batch. The OP No.1 repeatedly sent the information about the absence of complainant No.1 but without any result. The student also did not attend any doubt clearing sessions ever, after asking repeatedly to attend the same and never submitted the CPPs (Chapter Practice Problems) given to him. It has been further replied that as per the terms & conditions signed by the complainant and his son, the OPs unable to refund the same. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.    

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             Admittedly, the complainant took admission in OP Institute in 2 Year Classroom Programme (2011-13) for IIT-JEE and deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,530/- in advance as full 2 years course fee vide receipts Ann.C-2 & C-3.  It is also an admitted case that the complainant left the OP Institute just after two months of joining.

6]             The ld.Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant left the OP Institute due to their inadequate and faulty technique of teaching by the faculty and non-supportive attitude; therefore, the complainant was entitled to the refund of fee of the remaining period, which OPs declined.

7]             On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs has denied the faulty technique of teaching and non-supportive attitude of the teachers and that the complainant No.1 left the institute at his own free will, so he was not entitled for any refund.

8]             The objection of the ld.Counsel for the OPs that this court has no jurisdiction to try the complaint is not sustainable in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides additional remedy.  Moreover, the complainant is consumer qua OP Institute as OPs are rendering service for consideration, thus fall within the purview Section 2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

9]             The matter pertaining to advance payment of fees and its consequences have been squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka = (2003) 6 SCC 696 wherein the Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows:-

“It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us mat some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall duo. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.”

10]           The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred above, would, thus override any bilateral agreement between the parties.  It further makes clear that the OPs could not have charged full advance fees for two years and could have charged prescribed fee for one semester/year.  Thus, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fee after deducting the non-refundable service tax for the unattended period of the course.

11]           Reliance has also been placed on the latest decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in R.P. Nos.3365 of 2006, RP No.1805 of 2007, RP No.2660 of 2007, RP No.3496 of 2006 & R.P. No.3497 of 2006 filed by different Petitioners/Institutes including FIIT JEE Ltd. against Respondents/ Complainants/Students, which was decided on 14.11.2011, whereby the said issues were decided in favour of the complainants/consumers/ students and against the Institute like the OPs in the present case.                   

12]           In view of the above discussion as well as settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund the fee of the complainant, excluding the service tax, for 1 year & 10 months i.e. the remaining course period during which the complainant did not avail the services of OPs as he did not attend the classes. The OPs, jointly & severally, are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and physical harassment to the complainant, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.11000/-.

                This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay an interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount including compensation amount, till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned, after compliance.