Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/39/2019

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s FIITJEE Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

30 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	39 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	25.01.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	30.09.2020

 

 

 

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh.Dharam Pal, aged about 45 years, resident of H.No.697, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali.   

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  M/s FIITJEE Limited, Head Office: FIITJEE House 29-A, Kale Sari, Sarvapriya Vihar (Near Hauz-Khas Bus Terminal), New Delhi – 110016 through its Managing Director.

2]  M/s FIITJEE Limited, SCO No.321-322, Himalaya Marg, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.  

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. For the complainant.

  Sh.Vivek Lamba, Adv. For OPs.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his son namely Abhilov was a student of 9^th Standard and studying in St.Stephen School, Sector 45, Chandigarh as per ICSE Board.  It is averred that the complainant visited OP No.2 for coaching of his son as per school Board i.e. ICSE Board and as such got admission in OP No.2 coaching centre for two year coaching classes and paid an amount of Rs.1,60,499/- by way of demand drafts and post dates cheques, duly encashed by OPs (Ann.C-1 to C-7).  It is also averred that the complainant was assured by OP No.2 that his son will be given coaching & study as per his Board i.e. ICSE Board.  However, on attending the classes of OP No.2, the son of complainant noticed that the coaching was being imparted as per CBSE Board and there was no facility for providing coaching as per ICSE Board, as assured by OP No.2.  It is stated that when the father of the complainant took the matter with OP No.2, the representative of OP No.2 instead misbehaved and stated that since they have maximum number of CBSE Board students, so no coaching classes can be provided to his son according to ICSE Board and that he may quit the course or do study according to CBSE Board.  Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP No.2 to refund the fee so paid to them for coaching, which it failed to provide, but OP No.2 flatly refused to refund the amount.  The complainant also sent emails to the OPs for refund of fee amount, but nothing positive was done by OPs (Ann.C-8 to   C-10).  Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in rendering service and adopting unfair trade practice by the OPs.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has chosen the Four year CRP for JEE (Advanced) – Regular Contact Classes  (admission only for IX & X) and Fee Plan-I for payment of course fee.  It is stated that the complainant made payment of 2 years course fee only i.e. Rs.1,43,348/- including GST of Rs.21,866/-, however, the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.1,17,113/- to OP towards the said course fee, as a cheque for sum of Rs.26,236/- came uncleared due to stop payment by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,60,499/- to OP.  It is denied that at the time of getting admission, complainant categorically explained that his son’s coaching should be according to ICSE Board only.  It is denied that OP gives any assurance to the complainant that OP will teach complainant’s son as per ICSE Board syllabus/pattern which is different from CBSE Board. It is stated that OP provides specialized coaching/training and guidance for IIT-JEE and other competitive examination, as the complainant and his son was well aware of it before taking admission in OP Institute.  It is denied that at the time of admission OP assured the complainant that OP will teach his son as per ICSE Board syllabus.  It is submitted that the seat vacated by complainant’s son remained vacant throughout the course duration to maintain the quality and uniformity.  It is further submitted that the complainant and his son were well aware about the terms and conditions of the OP Institute.  It is also submitted that the complainant’s son left the course midway as well as he was well aware of the terms and conditions of OP and it’s no refund policy. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant reiterating the assertion as made in complaint and controverting that of OPs made in their reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

 

6]        The Opposite Party is not an accredited academic institution affiliated with any Board or University and is merely a Coaching Centre for providing Coaching to the students who aspire for admission to engineering/ technical institutions. The Opposite Party undoubtly is in dominating position and as such maneuvered to get the signature of parents of students on pre-settled printed enrollment undertaking. The parents under duress sign such undertaking with an anxiety to get their ward admitted for best coaching to enable him/her for better performance in the competitions for admission to high ranked engineering/technical institutions/ universities.  This is nothing but an emotional exploitation and cannot be acquiesced. If any child, after joining the coaching institute, failed to cope up with the coaching schedule for the reasons whatsoever, or is not satisfied with the standard of coaching or the environment at the coaching institute, he cannot be penalized by way of forfeiture of his money, which has been deposited by his parents with such coaching centre.  The Coaching Centres are entitled legally to charge fee only for the services, which they actually provide to the student and not more than that.

7]       Per record, it is established that the complainant, an ICSE Boards student, was not provided any coaching classes by the Opposite Parties under ICSE Board Syllabus and thus he made a request for the refund of the fees paid by him, but the Opposite Parties did not bother to refund the same. It is settled proposition of law that no fee (including advance fee) can be illegally held by the Opposite Parties for the period for which no coaching/service is being availed by the Complainant.

8]       Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case and discussion made in preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to refund the entire fee so received from the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing complaint i.e. 25.1.2019 till realization. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony & harassment caused to him due to their deficient act.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th Sept., 2020                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER