BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA No. 278 OF 2016 AGAINST CC No.28 OF 2016

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-RANGA REDDY

     Between :

1. M/s. FIITJEE Junior College,

D.No.16-11-477/6/2/2,

Sahadeva Reddy Building, Indira Nagar,

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500036.

Represented by Centre Head.

2. The FIITJEE Ltd.,FIITJEE House,

29-A, Kalu Sari,

Sarvapriya Vihar (Hear Hauz Khas Bus Terminal),

New Delhi – 110016,  Represented by it’s Deputy

General Manager, Sri Vijay Waghray,

S/o. Dr. V.N.Waghray.                                      …Appellants / Opposite Parties                                    

AND

Lanka Sadanad, S/o. Lanka Seshavataram,

Aged 52 years, Occ: Not known,

R/o.# 77, Road 6, Yadavanagar,

Alkapuri,

Hyderabad - 500035.                                       ....Respondent / Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants / Opposite Parties:  M/s. Rupendra Mahendra

Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant: Party in Person

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla          …      President

&

Hon’ble Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …              Member

Friday the Twenty Ninth day of December

Two thousand Seventeen

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).

                                                           ***

Having aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy [for brevity, ‘the District Forum’] in C.C.No.28/2016 the present Appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the Opposite Parties in it.  By the said order the District Forum directed the Opposite Parties to repay the Complainant an amount of Rs.2,15,864/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 13.12.2014 with compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- by granting a time of one month for due compliance.    For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint.   

2.         The case of the Complainant, in brief, as set up before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, 1986, is that he admitted his son, Mr.Vinay Lanka in the Opposite Party No.1 Junior College to undergo a two years Integrated Program IIT-JEE on 13.12.2014 with one week Bridge Course with an Introductory Program which was to start in March, 2015 by making payment of Rs.1,94,797/- towards fees at the time of admission and thereafter the balance fees of the total amount of Rs.2,93,718/- on various dates.  His further case is that after attending the classes of the Bridge Course only for 3 days his son discontinued it.  Thereafter despite his repeated requests, the Opposite Party No.1 Junior College did not refund the fees on the pretext that it was non refundable as per the terms and conditions of the admissions.  By attributing this attitude of the Opposite Parties, as unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, the complainant sought refund of the fees with interest and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs.    
3.                                        The Opposite Parties resisted the claim before the District Forum by way of filing written version on the grounds, interalia, that the Complainant’s son voluntarily withdrew himself from the Institution after attending classes for three days without any intimation and that as per the principle the college did not fill up his vacant seat.  Because once the classes are commenced, a new student will not be able to cope up with the subjects which were already completed.  At the time of admission the Complainant’s son and wife signed a Declaration /Undertaking admitting the terms and conditions therein, as per which the fees could not be refunded under any circumstance.  This being duly a contractual obligation between the parties the question of refund of the fees doesn’t arise.  As per the Opposite Parties, if such fee was allowed to be refunded, it would cause great loss to the Institution.  They have also contended that inview of the arbitration clause forming part of the Declaration attached to the Enrollment Form, the present complaint was not maintainable and that the Complainant has to approach the sole Arbitrator to resolve the issue.  For all these reasons they sought dismissal of the complaint. 
4.             After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum allowed the complaint as noted in Para no.1 supra. 

5.                    The said order is challenged by the Opposite Parties by way of the present Appeal on the grounds, interalia, that the District Forum did not consider the fact that the Complainant’s son had voluntarily withdrawn himself from the course constraining the Institution to leave the seat vacant without filling it with any other candidate.  Infact, the Complainant’s son and wife have agreed to the terms and conditions of the Enrollment Form by voluntarily signing the Declarations / Undertakings at the time of the admission and that inview of the contractual obligation they cannot claim refund of the fees.  If, the same is refunded the Institution will be put to loss as the same has been functioning with self-financing.  As per the Opposite Parties / Appellants, the District Forum has ignored all these material aspects and passed the impugned order even without considering various judgments relied on by them and that as such the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the Appeal.
6.                  The Appellants have filed Written Arguments but the Respondent did not choose to do so.  We have perused them and heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the Respondent in person.
7.          Now the point for consideration is that: 

whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and law and that as such liable to be set aside?         

8.         Point: The factual aspect of the matter, narrated in Para no.2 supra, is not in dispute.  The only dispute is with regard to maintainability of the claim under the provisions of the Act, 1986.
9.  Undisputedly, the Complainant’s son joined the Opposite Party No.1 College on 13.12.2014 to undertake coaching in IIT-JEE by way of an Integrated Program of two years with a Bridge Course of one week commenced in the month of March, 2015 by remitting a total sum of Rs.2,93,718/- towards fees and other charges on various dates.  But after attending the course only for 3 days, his son withdrew himself from the college on the ground that he could not cope up with the new atmosphere.  As per the letter dated 19.04.2015 under Ex.A1 addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 College seeking refund of above stated amount, his son refused to join the course despite repeated counseling.  Thus, it is clear that the Complainant’s son voluntarily withdrew himself from the College and that the reason for it, in our opinion, is not a reasonable and valid one.  In this regard it is pertinent to note from a copy of the Enrolment Form under Ex.B1, shows that at the time of admission, the Complainant’s wife and son have signed agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the admissions.  The declarations / undertakings which form part of the said Enrolment Form clearly establish this aspect.  The relevant clauses therein, for beneficial use, are extracted below:

8.  I undertake that if I leave the Institute midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to transfer of my Father / Mother / Legal Guardian / ill health of myself or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute / course engineering college etc., or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc., I or my Father /mother/Legal Guardian shall not be entitled for refund of fees.

10. In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be, nor is it adjustable towards any other existing course at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student.

10.  The Opposite Parties have specifically contended that, the Complainant and his mother have voluntarily signed Ex.B1 and thus agreed to abide by the said terms and conditions without any coercion, undue influence or duress.  It is to be noted that, the Complainant did not adduce any evidence to refute this contention.  Thus it is clear that the parties have entered into the contract and as such they are under obligation to abide by it and that a court cannot change or alter the said terms and conditions without consent of the parties.
11. The learned counsel for the Appellants / Opposite Parties has taken us through various decisions of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court apart from some of the decisions of other State Commissions and also a decision of this Commission in:

12. Similar question, as the present one on hand, was involved in the above cited cases and it was consistently held therein that education is not a commodity and that educational institutions are not providing any sort of service, therefore, in the matter of admission fees etc., there cannot be any question of deficiency in service.  Therefore, it was ruled that such matters cannot be entertained by the Fora under the Act, 1986.  The Hon’ble Apex court in a recent judgment dated 17.01.2014 in Civil Appeal no.697/2014, between the Indian Institute of Bank and Finance (IIBF) Vs. Mukul Sri Vastava, held that the Complainants, under the circumstance, shall have liberty to seek their grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law.  This judgment was referred to by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC).  In view of this legal dictum we have no difficulty in holding that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer´ within the meaning of the Act, 1986 and that as such his claim is not tenable before the District Forum. However, we would like to add that to seek the relief before a proper Forum/Civil Court, he can seek help for condonation of delay under Section-14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, inview of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG International Institute (1995) CPJ 1(SC).
13. Inview of the above said legal aspect, in our considered view, it is needless to remit back the matter to the lower forum for appreciation of the document under Ex.B1, which has been filed for the first time in the present Appeal, in resolving the issue. It is also needless to deal with the defence set up by the Opposite Parties regarding maintainability of the claim as per arbitration clause contained in the Enrolment Form, Ex.B1.
14. We have given a careful consideration to the impugned order.  The Learned District Forum has granted the relief basing on the omission on the part of the Opposite Parties in not filing the Enrolment Form to substantiate their defence regarding non refundable nature of the fees.  But since, the said document is placed on record before us, the order under Appeal deserves to be rectified by way of setting it aside.  The Learned District Forum has taken an equitable view that since the Complainant’s son has attended the course only for three days, the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the fees to the Complainant.  But, this view has no legs to stand in the light of the principle of law laid down in the Catena of decisions referred supra.  Therefore, we hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the present Appeal.     
15. The point is answered accordingly.            
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.  Consequently the complaint stands dismissed. The Complainant is at liberty to approach a proper Forum / Civil Court, if so advised, for redressal by availing the benefit of Section-14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.  In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.      

      PRESIDENT    MEMBER           

      Dt.29.12.2017