PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 04/04/2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 190/08 M/s. FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Ishaan Punj by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent joined OP/Petitioner Institute in February, 2006 for a period of 2 years classroom programme for IIT Joint Entrance Examination and paid Rs.76,589/- as fees. After attending classes upto January, 2007, complainant found that the education imparted at OP Institute was not fruitful so vide letters dated 8.2.2007 and 19.2.2007 complainant intimated to OP that he does not want to continue with the course and requested for refund of the balance fee of the second year. As refund was not made, complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that out of 76,589/- deposited by complainant, Rs.69.500/- was towards course fee and Rs.6950/- was towards service tax and Rs.139/- was towards education cess. It was further denied that coaching was not of desired purpose and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.38,294.50 with cost of Rs.1100/- and Rs.2100/- as compensation and further awarded 12% p.a. interest from 9.2.2006 till payment if the payment is not made within a period of 30 days. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for the respondent even after service. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance to order of the State Commission Rs.38,294/- has already been refunded to the respondent vide cheque dated 15.9.2008 and this revision petition has been admitted only to the extent of refund of interest and cost. It was further submitted that as refund has been made immediately after impugned order, the order allowing interest and cost be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2003) 6 SCC 696 Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka in which it was observed that educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, but if an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require the student to give a bond/bank guarantee for balance fees for the whole course. It was further observed that if educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution and balance fees must be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank which may be withdrawn as and when fees falls and at the end of the course, interest on those deposits will be paid to the student from whom fees was collected in advance. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Honle Apex Court has permitted advance fees for the whole course and has further permitted to get bond/bank guarantee from the student for the balance fees for the whole course if not received in advance, meaning thereby institution does not commit any deficiency in receiving fees for the whole course except to the extent that balance fees is to be deposited in FDR and interest accrued on that is to be returned to the student. He further submitted that as 50% of the fees as ordered by District Forum has already been refunded immediately after State Commission order, in such circumstances, order levying interest and cost be set aside. 8. Perusal of record reveals that out of the fees deposited by the respondent Rs.6950/- was towards service tax and Rs.139/- was towards education cess which did not go in the pocket of petitioner; even then, learned District Forum and State Commission allowed refund of 50% of the aforesaid amount. As revision petition has been admitted only to the point of payment of interest and cost, we deem it appropriate to set aside award of interest on two counts; firstly, refund has been made just after 5 months of impugned order and District Forum allowed interest only if payment is not made within a period of 30 days. Had petitioner deposited this amount immediately after order interest was not payable. Petitioner had right to file the appeal and after dismissal of first appeal petitioner has refunded amount within 5 months, in such circumstances, respondent is not entitled to get interest; and secondly, District Forum allowed refund of 50% of the tax deposited by petitioner on account of fees received from the respondent which apparently could not have been ordered. In such circumstances, order imposing interest is liable to be set aside. 9. As far as cost awarded by the District Forum & State Commission is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the cost awarded by the District Forum and the State Commission. 10. Consequently, revision petition is partly allowed and impugned order dated 4.4.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.190/08 - FIITJEE Limited Vs. Mr. Ishaan Punj and order dated 26.2.2008 passed by learned District Forum in Complaint No. 427/07 Ishaan Punj Vs. FIITJEE Limited is modified and order imposing interest is set aside and rest of the order is affirmed.