BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.132 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO. 1107 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM–III HYDERABAD
Between:
1. M/s FIITJEE Limited
5-9-14/B, Saifabad
Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad
rep. by its Senior Manager
2. M/s FIITJEE Limited
D.No.16-11-477/6/2/2,
Sahadeva Reddy Buildings,
Lane Beside Sahadeva Reddy Sweets
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by
Its Centre Head
3. M/s FIITJEE Limited
National Admissions Office
FIITJEE House, 29-A, Kalu Saraj
Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-016
rep. by its Managing Director
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
Miss Dupaguntla Vaishnavi D/o Mr.D.Siva Kumar
aged about 16 years, Occ: Student being minor
rep. through her father & natural guardian
Mr.D.Siva Kumar, R/o H.No.1-9-295/19
Sri Lakshimi Nilayam, Vidyanagar,
Hyderabad-44
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s R.Mahendra
Counsel for the Respondents M/s K.Visweswara Rao
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties are the appellants. The respondent has joined in course Pinnacle-II-Jee of XI class programme for the academic years 2010-2012 conducted by the appellants and the appellants collected a sum of 1,98,154/- in six instalments commencing from 24.2.2010. The classes were commenced on 10.06.2010 and the respondent attended the classes regularly. The respondent was not satisfied with the standard of faculty and the facilities provided by the appellants. Subsequently the respondent was transferred to Dilsukhnagar branch on payment of fees 8,273/- and there also the faculty and facilities were substandard. After attending few classes, the respondent was forced to leave the institution and joined elsewhere. The respondent scored 10CGPA in 10th CBSE and the appellants failed to pay the scholarship. The respondent requested the appellants to refund the fees paid by her. The appellants rejected her request taking shelter under the declaration of the enrolment form disentitling her claim for refund of fees. The respondent got issued notice dated 5.10.2010 and when there was no reply, she filed the complaint before the District Forum.
2. The appellants resisted the case contending that the institution of the appellants is a premier educational institute providing quality education recruit faculty members through the stringent selection process. The institute being self-financed and self-managed survives on fees collected from the students in advance. The total fees charged includes taxes as applicable and cost of study material supply to the students. The complaint is barred by the arbitration agreement as per para 13 of the declaration and enrolment form. Paras 6, 7, 12 and 17 of the enrolment form clearly indicate the unconditional and free consent of the parent and the respondent. The respondent includes 17,000/- towards admission fee; 6000/- towards examination fee; 14,781/- towards service tax and a sum of 24,000/- towards study material. The respondent herself has requested the appellants to transfer her from the appellant no.1 to appellant no.2 due to some personal reasons.
3. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A8. ON behalf of the appellants, the Sr.Manager-HRD and the Mentor and Director of the appellants filed their affidavits and the documents, Exs.B1 to B3.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellants to pay 1,83,373/- with interest @ 6% per annum, compensation of 5,000/- and costs of 2000/-.
5. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the appellants filed the appeal contending that the respondent had attended the classes and had discontinued midway in the month of September and the appellants were constrained to leave the seat open which caused loss to the appellants. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to go beyond the terms of the written contract and that the District Forum failed to take into consideration of various judgments cited in respect of the issue in question.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?
7. The facts beyond any dispute are that the respondent applied for and joined in Pinnacle-IIT-JEE of XI classes program with the college of the appellants for academic year, 2010-2012 and paid an amount of 1,98,154/- in six instalments commencing from 24.2.2010 till 4.8.2010 towards advance tuition fee. The prescribed fee for each student course is 1,98,154/-.
8. The respondent secured 10CGPA in X CBSE Board examination and as per the terms of Ex.A9 she is entitled to 50% scholarship which can be considered as concession in tuition fees. The District Forum has observed that the appellants had not produced evidence showing conferment of scholarship on the respondent as to the tuition fees. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had collected entire tuition fees in advance.
9. The counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgments:
1. FIITJEE vs. Miss Smridhi Choudhry in F.A.No.814 of 2008 of this Commission decided on 16.12.2010
2. Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam in R.P.No.270 of 2006 of the Hon’ble National Commission decided on 29.01.2010
3. Apeejay Institute of Management and Information Technology vs. Prashant Ashok reported in 1 (2009) CPJ 10(NC)
4. Anshuman Das Gupta vs FIITJEE reported in IV (2008) CPJ 4.
5. Bhojia Dental College & Hospital & Ors vs. Aman Deep Singh reported in II (2009) CPJ 336
6. Bharathi Knitting Col. Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Divisional
of Airfreight Ltd., reported in AIR 1996 SC 2508
7. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Vs Muthuswamy Duraiswamy and Anr. repoted in Manu/CF/0080/2002
8. Ramdeo Baba Engineering Colleve Vs Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Anr., reported in 1994 (3) CPR 194
9. K.Siva Prasad Vs Y.Krishna Veni Rao reported in 2004(1) ALD (Cons.) 7.
In FIITJEE’s case, (supra) this Commission held that the institute was put to disadvantage as the seat vacated was not filled up. It was held that the respondent agreed not to claim for refund of the fees in case she opted for voluntary withdrawal from the institute. It was held that non refund of fee does not amount to deficiency in service.
Brilliant classes (supra) is a case where the National Commission considered the terms of agreement and withdrawal of the candidate on the premise of irregular holding of classes and there being held on intervals. The National Commission did not agree with the view that irregular holding of classes amounts to deficiency in service.
In Apeejay Institute (supra) the complainant secured admission for mass communication and he did not attend the classes. The institute continuously was writing to the complainant to come and join the classes and the complainant failed to attend the classes. The National Commission observed that the complainant cannot claim for refund of the fees as the complainant failed to attend the classes continuously as also his guardian an undertaking not to claim refund of the fees.
Anshuman Das Gupta’s (supra) is a case where the District Forum held the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the student or his guardian not to claim the refund of the fees is unconscionable or illegal. The National Commission held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the legality or declare any rule in prospectus unconscionable.
In Bhojia Dental College’s (supra) case refund of the fees was sought on the premise that the complainant failed in first year BDS exam and she was readmitted and thereafter he voluntarily left the college. The National Commission held that the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant for whole period of BDS course and the complainant studied one year in the college.
In Bharathi’s knitting (supra) it was held that the court or tribunal cannot go behind the terms of the contract entered between the parties and the parties are bound by the terms of the contract.
T.V.Sundaram Iyengar (supra) is a case where the National Commission considered and held that the tribunals cannot go against the terms of the contract between the contract unless the terms are illegal or void. The National Commission distinguished the terms which are void ffrom those that are voidable and held that consumer forum has no jurisdiction to strike down a condition in the contract.
Ramdeobaba (supra) is a case where the complainant withdrew from the college to join another institute voluntarily and in the circumstances the admission fees was not held liable to be refunded to the complainant.
In all the above cases, there was no occasion to consider the terms of enrolment form in the backdrop of the notice issued by the UGC. In fact, by the time certain aforementioned decisions were rendered, notice or guidelines issued by UGC was not in existence.
10. The appellants placing reliance on para 6, 7, 12 and 17 of the declaration made by the respondent contained in enrolment form has declined to refund the amount received towards tuition fees from the respondent. The relevant declaration and the paragraphs 6, 7, 12 and 17 thereof read as under:
6. I understand that if I leave the institute before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including transfer of parents/guardians/ill health of self or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/engineering college etc., or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc. I or my parents/guardian shall have no claim for refund of fees.
7. In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be.
12. I promise to abide by all rules and regulations of FIITJEE declaration, in letter and spirit.
17. I/we, the parent/guardian and/or the student, severally and jointly declare that I/we have read and understood at all clauses contained in the Declaration on Enrolment Form and agree to abide by them without any reservation or ambiguity.
11. There is no dispute of the fact that the declaration in the enrollment form prohibits refund of the amount received towards tuition fees. However, the declaration has to be read in the light of the notice issued by the UGC
12. It is contended on behalf the appellants that the candidates are not entitled to refund of the fees as there was no possibility to fill up the seats by admitting the other candidates till the end of entire duration of the course. It is true if the candidate leaves the institute just after the admission or some time thereafter in the same academic year, the college would substitute the seat vacated with some other student and if the student leaves the college after completing one year, it is difficult for the college to go for some other student to fill up the seat vacated by the former student.
13. The respondent has paid an amount of 1,98,154/-. The respondent has opted to leave the appellant no.1 college on her own accord. The respondent stayed with the appellant no.1 college for a period of 38 days. Taking into consideration of the circumstances, we do not find the direction of the District Forum to hold the respondent entitled to the amount of ,83,373/-. The District Forum has deducted a sum of 14,871/- towards service tax and added the service tax, the period of 11 days that the respondent studied in the appellant no.1 college would make the amount to a sum of 20,000/-. As such the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified by reducing the amount of 1,83,373/- to 1,77,373/- .
14. In the result the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District and reducing the amount awarded by the District Forum 1,77,373/-. The rest of the order is confirmed. There shall be no separate order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.19.02.2014
కె.ఎం.కె.*
