Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1000/2016

Hardeep Singh Mendiratta - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In person

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1000/2016
Date of Institution	:	07/11/2016
Date of Decision	:	27/02/2017

 

Hardeep Singh Mendiratta s/o Sh. Amar Singh Mendiratta r/o House No.2350, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     FIIT JEE Limited, FIIT JEE House, 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016 through its Founder Chairman and Chief Mentor.

2.     FIIT JEE Limited, Chandigarh Centre, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, SCO 321-22, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Centre Head.

3.     Sh. Rajan Bhargava, Incharge Admissions, FIIT JEE Limited Chandigarh, 1^st Floor, SCO 321-22, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Rahul Goyal, Counsel for OPs

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts, in brief, are that in the month of January 2015, Mr. Ishaan Singh Mendiratta, son of the complainant enrolled himself in a Four Year Class Room Programme for JEE (Advanced) with OP-2 and signed a contract. Fee according to Fee Plan I amongst 3 options was paid for Class IX and X.  At the time of admission the complainant also wanted to deposit the PDCs for Class XI and XII but OP-3 dissuaded him from doing so. Thereafter, neither the OPs asked for the PDC’s for Class XI and XII nor the complainant gave any notice of withdrawal of his ward.  However, a mail dated 14.8.2016 was received with regard to deposit of fee.  The said mail was discussed with the centre head vis-a-vis the contract who advised to deposit the fee cheques as per old fee plan. The fee cheques were prepared by the complainant on 30.8.2016 and the last date prescribed for PDC’s was 10.10.2016, but, OP-3 refused to accept the fee deposited vide application dated 30.8.2016.  A written request was also given to FIIT JEE on 30.8.2016 to accept the cheques as per old fee plan, but, no positive response was heard despite reminder mail, telephonic calls, personal visits and notices. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         OPs in their joint written statement have taken a number of preliminary objections including that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no consumer dispute/cause of action against the OPs.  It has been denied that the complainant insisted upon depositing the PDC’s for Class XI/XII, but, was denied by OP-3 and he  became rude and misbehaved with the complainant on the ground that the complainant was unnecessarily increasing his work and PDC’s for Class XI and XII were only to be deposited before the commencement of work. The complainant was categorically informed that OPs can only accept admission for further classes based on the new fee as scheduled and that the system would not accept the fee as per old fee as it was a unified system for accounting.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
6.         On the basis of the evidence on record, the complainant, Sh. Hardeep Singh Mendiratta has vehemently contended that his son Mr. Ishaan Singh Mendiratta (Enrollment no.9065161590032) is a student of Four year class room program for JEE (Advanced) at Chandigarh Centre of FIIT JEE who got enrolled in January 2015 and fee for class IX & X was paid at the time of enrollment. Fee details for Class XI and XII as per fee plan were as under :-

Fee	Installment date		Page
Rs.1,14,035	10-Oct-2016	Page 2 of 8 Annexure P-2	14
Rs.59,971	10-Dec-2017	Page 2 of 8 Annexure P-2	14
Rs.4,607	10-Oct-2016	Page 3 of 8 Annexure P-2	15
Rs.6,967	10-Dec-2017	Page 3 of 8 Annexure P-2	15
Total Fee Rs.1,85,580/-

 

7.         In case of exit option, clause ‘h’ of contract (Annexure P-1) reads as under :-

“Exit option – The parent has opted for an exit option and have given the PDC’s (post dated cheques) for only Class IX and X Curriculum. The parent specifically agrees to pay the PDC’s towards Class XI, XII curriculum as mentioned on the Fee Acknowledgement on or before.  In case parent fails to submit these fee instruments by the student will be considered exited and all further benefits, scholarships etc. would be withdrawn.”

Contrary to the contract agreement in fee plan (Annexure P-2), exit option 2 reads as under :-

“…… If you decide to continue in Class XI/XII at any later stage, need to pay fee of Class XI/XII applicable after 2 years (current fee for class XI/XII declared at the time of joining for session 2017-19).”

The complainant insisted upon depositing the PDCs for class XI/XII, but, Mr. Rajan Bhargava misbehaved with the complainant and told him that he was unnecessarily increasing his work because PDCs for class XI & XII were only to be deposited before commencement of the work. As a matter of fact, the OPs wanted to charge higher fee which would be prevalent in session 2017-19 and on that account the complainant was forbidden to deposit PDCs for the session 2017-19 at the first instance.  Thereafter, neither FIIT JEE asked for the PDCs for Class XI and XII nor did the complainant give any notice of withdrawal of his ward to FIIT JEE.  However, a mail (Annexure P-3) was received by the complainant on 14.8.2016, which reads as under :-

        “For students who enrolled ………………… for two year and one year only have the option of continuing in 11 by giving a written application about continuing the same. In this scenario they will have the benefit of same scholarship on tuition fee till say 10 September but on the Current Fee ……….”

In view of the mail, the complainant prepared fee cheques (Annexure C-6) on 30.8.2016 much before the start of Class XI course in 3^rd week of November 2016 on the basis of old fee plan, but, Mr. Rajan Bhargava, Incharge admission refused to accept the fee deposited vide application dated 30.8.2016 (Annexure P-5). A written request was given to FIIT JEE on 30.8.2016 (Annexure
P-7), but, no response was received from the opposite side. Thereafter, reminder mail dated 10.9.2016 (Annexure P-8), notices dated 29.9.2016 and 18.10.2016 (Annexure P-9 & P-10) were sent to OPs, but, to no effect.  It is contended that once admission in 4 year course was taken, the complainant was entitled to deposit fee of his ward prevalent at the time of admission and not the fee which is prevalent at the time of the session 2017-19.  Demanding fee at higher rate prevalent for 2017-19 for the ward admitted to 4 year course in the year 2015 amounts to unfair trade practice.  It is contended that education is service in view of Section 65 (26) & (27) of the Service tax Act. Reliance has also been placed upon Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad & Ors. decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 29.9.2000 wherein while relying upon Supreme Court ruling in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & Ors, reported in AIR 1978 SC 553, it has been held that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  Fees are paid for the services to be rendered by way of imparting education by educational institutions.

                On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it has been canvassed before us that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be allowed and the same may be allowed in the terms of the prayer clause of the complaint.

8.         But, however, the sole point which is required to be determined by this Forum is as to whether education falls within the ambit of ‘service’ or not or whether the parent/ward comes within the definition of ‘consumer’ in relation to OP educational institution?  Answer to this query is given in the negative.  This question arose before the Hon’ble Apex court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012, decided on 9.8.2012 and Revision Petition No.270 of 2006 titled as Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam, decided on 29.1.2010 and it has been held that educational institutions are not service providers because education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any kind of service. In view of the latest law laid down in the rulings above, Bhupesh Khurana’s (supra) authority relied upon by the complainant shall not advance the case of the complainant.  Since the complainant is not proved to be a ‘consumer’ and education is neither a commodity nor a ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,  therefore, the case of the complainant that the OPs are refusing to accept the fee for Session 2017-19 in advance at old rate, cannot be termed to be a ‘consumer dispute’. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.     
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/02/2017	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	President