Orissa

Cuttak

CC/13/2019

Susanta Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIITJEE - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                            C.C.No.13/2019

                        Susanta Kumar Mishra,

S/O:Late Basudev Misha,

At present residing at Plot No.7MC/27,

Sector-7,CDA,Cuttack-14.                                    ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       Centre Head,FIITJEE,Cuttack Centre,

Kailash Plaza,3^rd Floor,

Link Road,Cuttack-753012.

 

2.       Centre Head,FIITJEE,

Bhubaneswar Centre,Bharat Scouts & Guides Complex,

Scouts Bhaan,2^nd Floor,C-IX/8,Unit-3,

                  Bhubaneswar-751022

 

3.       Chairman-cum-Chiefmentor,

FIITJEE, FIITJEE House,,29-A,

Kalu Sarai,Sarvapriya Vihar,

New Delhi-110016                  .... Opp. Parties.

.

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   24.01.2019

Date of Order:  04.08.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.               :      Mr. D.Kumar,Adv. & Associates.     

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                  

            The case of the complainant in short is that his son namely Adarsh Mishra had taken admission in the institution of the Opposite Parties and was prosecuting studies course from Class-IX to Class-XII starting from the year 2015.  The course would have been completed in the year 2019.  The complainant had paid to the O.Ps a sum of Rs.2,89,350/- towards the course-fee.  The son of the complainant had successfully completed Class-IX & Class-X in the institution of O.Ps and thereafter he was prosecuting his studies for the course  of Class-XI.  During this period, the son of the complainant could not fare well in his class-XI examination.  The complainant being dissatisfied with the performance of his son had contacted the O.Ps and wanted to know the reason of the poor performance of his son.  The O.Ps remained silent over the matter.  So the complainant had requested the O.Ps to issue the transfer certificate in favour of his son in order to enable his son to study at some other better Institution.  The complainant had also requested the O.Ps to refund the balance course-fee amounting to Rs.69,345/- which was collected by the O.Ps  in advance towards the study in Class-XII course.  The O.Ps vide e.mail dt.12.5.18 had agreed for refund of such fee of the complainant but later on, they had not refunded the same amount.  Even after repeated persuasions and intimations initiated by the complainant and also issuance of his pleader’s notice on 27.12.18, when the O.Ps did not refund the course-fee of Rs.69,345/-, the complainant has filed this present case with a prayer seeking direction to the O.Ps for refunding  the said course-fee as well as a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.

            In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed Xerox copies of some documents.

2.         The O.Ps have appeared and have filed written version jointly admitting about receiving a sum of Rs.2,89,755/- including G.S.T  towards the tuition fee for “four year classroom programme for the course of IIT-JEE (Regular Contact classes) from the complainant.  It is contended by the O.Ps that the complainant as well as his son were well aware of the terms and conditions of their institution before enrolling in the institution.  It was categorically and specifically made clear to the complainant at the time of admission that as per the terms and conditions of the enrolment, fees once paid would not be refunded under any circumstances and the complainant and his son had given undertaking to that effect also.   The further case of O.Ps is that they only admit meritorious students, who had qualified the entrance examination which was conducted by them. It is contended that the O.Ps are imparting quality education by appointing highly qualified faculty members.  Most of the students of their Institution had qualified in different competitive examinations.  It is contended by the O.Ps that they impart high quality of teaching and that in order to ensure quality education and uniform teaching standard keeping it in mind, they do not fill up the vacancy that which if created on the event any student who quits the course midway and the said seat remains vacant throughout the course program.  It is stated that seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the course duration in order to maintain the quality and uniformity.  Thus, the Institution is entitled for the fee of the ‘program’ and the complainant is not entitled to get refund of it.  It is further averred by the O.Ps that it is a self-financed and self-managed Institute which runs through the fees that which is collected from the students.  Most of the expenditure is incurred in advance and also is of fixed nature.  The O.Ps have to bear expenditures like Lease Rent of the premises, Salary of the Faculty Members and that of the Non-Faculty Staff, Electricity expenses and other allied expenditures, Preparation and Printing of Study Materials etc. irrespective of the number of students and batches at all the branches throughout India.  It is contended that neither the complainant nor his son had ever raised any objection to the teaching quality of O.Ps.  Hence, it is contended by the O.Ps that there is no deficiency on their part for which, the case is liable to be dismissed.

            The O.Ps have also filed copies of some documents to support their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments in complaint petition and that of written version in this case, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in ordoer to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the complaint case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had adopted any unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues No.iii & iv.

            For the sake of convenience, issues no.3 & 4 are taken up together first for consideration in this case.

            It is admitted fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,89,350/- including GST to the O.Ps and an agreement was executed between the parties to that effect.  The complainant’s son had taken “Four Years Classroom Programme for IIT-JEE(Regular Contact Classes)”.    In the third year of course, i.e., in Class-XI Examination, the complainant’s son could not fare well.  It is understood that the standard of complainant’s son instead of improving, had deteriorated.   Thus, the complainant being dissatisfied with the performance of his son wanted to transfer him from the Institution of the O.Ps to another Institution in order to give him better teaching.  The O.Ps have not specifically denied the allegations of the complainant to the effect that they had agreed for refund of the course fees of Class-XII on his request and also had sent e.mail on 12.5.2018 to the complainant to that effect.  Hence, allegations of the complainant are presumed to be true.  Thus, the alleged agreement which was executed in-between the complainant with the O.Ps is non-existent in the eye of law.

            The O.Ps have admitted that the son of the complainant was a meritorious student as he had qualified the Entrance Examination conducted by them before entering into their Institution.  Hence, it is evident that the standard of the complainant’s son had ofcourse deteriorated.         The O.Ps vide their e.mail dt.12.5.2018 also had agreed to refund the course fees amounting to Rs.69,345/-, which was taken by them in advance for Class-XII.  The O.Ps after agreeing to refund the said course fee are playing hide and seek with the complainant by not returning the same to him.   

            Be that as it may, the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dt.14.11.2017, passed in R.P.No.918/2015 in the case of Jaipreet Singh Kaushal Vs. FiitJee Limited & another, has  held that Coaching Institution cannot charge advance fees for next year.  Challenging the said order FiitJee had filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No.(S)16105/2018 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the said SLP filed by FiitJee Ltd.  Hence, the O.Ps cannot collect advance course fees as per the settled principles of our Hon’ble Apex Court.

            Thus, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and had in fact practised unfair trade by collecting the advance fees as well as by not refunding the advance fees for the fourth year.

Issue No.v.

            The O.Ps had collected advance course fees of Rs.69,345/- for Class-\XII on 10.12.2017 from the complainant.  So the O.Ps are liable to refund the said course fees with interest from thereon.

Issues No.i & ii.

            In view of the above, the complainant has definite cause of action to file this case and this case is of course maintainable.  Thus, the complainant is entitled to the relief.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                               ORDER

            The case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps, who are jointly and severally liable in this case who are thus  directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.69,345/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 10.12.2017 till the payment is made, alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation cost.   This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                           Member.

                                                                       

                                                                                               

   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President