Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/699/2017

Vikram Seth - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Seth

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

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

                                                     ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/699/2017
Date of Institution	:	09/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	12/07/2018

 

Vikram Seth (minor) through his natural guardian (mother) Mrs. Vandna Seth, H.No.419, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana – 134109.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     FIIT JEE Limited, through its Managing Director, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, SCO 321-322, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

[2]     FIIT JEE Limited, through its Managing Director, FIIT JEE House, 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, (Near Hauz Khas Bus Terminal), New Delhi – 110016.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Arjun Kundra, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Vivek Lamba, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Mr. Vikram Seth (minor), the Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against FIITJEE Ltd. and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he got admission in the Two Year Classroom Program of the Opposite Parties by paying an amount of Rs.51,037/- vide Enrolment No.1151 16 179 0030. The Complainant attended the classes for 08 days (32 hours) and found that the manner & methodology of teaching in the classes, was completely different from the way it was explained by the Executive and Staff of the Opposite Parties. Eventually, vide letter dated 16.05.2017, the Complainant requested for refund. When nothing positive could come out, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 28.06.2017 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the enrolment form, fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances. The Complainant and his parents, after going through all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the enrolment form and information given, had given their consent and signed the declarations/undertaking appended therein.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
7.         It is an admitted fact that on 16.11.2016 the fees for 2 Semesters/ 2 different sessions was charged by the Opposite Parties in lumpsum at the start of the Session, amounting to Rs.51,037/-. It is also admitted fact that the Complainant attended the classes for only 08 days. Per record, it is established that not satisfied with the coaching imparted by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant made a request for the refund of the fees paid by him, but the Opposite Parties did not bother to refund the same.
8.         In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that the Opposite Parties could not charge full advance fees for two years and could charge prescribed fee only for one year. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to get refund of advance fee after deducting the fee for the period he attended the classes i.e. only for 8 days.  Pertinently, Opposite Parties cannot claim any prejudice caused to them when the Complainant left the course when he is not satisfied with the education/coaching being imported in the OP-Institute. It is settled proposition of law that no fee (including advance fee) can be illegally held by the Opposite Parties for the period for which no coaching/service is being availed by the Complainant.
9.         It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have refunded the balance fee after deducting the fee for the period of 08 days, which they failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]   To refund Rs.49,918/- (after deducting fee for 08 days) to the Complainant;

 [b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                    

12.07.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER