Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/65/2021

Mr. Vivek Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pankaj Chandgothia

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/65/2021
Date of Institution	:	1.2.2021
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

M/s Vivek Bansal S/o Sh. Subhash Bansal R/o House No. 14, Sector 22-A, Chanderlok Colony, Mandi Gobindgarh Punjab 147301.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s FIIT Jee Ltd.  First floor, SCO 321-322, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160022, through its Manager.
2. M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. FIIT JEE House 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Near Hauz Khas Metro Station, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi 110016, through its Director.

… Opposite Party(ies)

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Vivek Lamba, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated the complainant got his son enrolled with the OPs for PINNACLE two  year integrated school programme for JEE (Advanced) 2022 in the year January 2020 and paid a total sum of Rs.3,00,090/- in advance as a Pinnacle course fee, under different heads. Apart from this OPs also taken two post dated cheques from the complainant of Rs.28,800/- and 92,270/- alongwith undertaking from the complainant to ensure encashment thereof. It is stated that the school and classroom studies envisaged under the Pinnacle programme never started in mid April as per the given schedule due to outbreak of COVID Pandemic. No physical classes ever started. Some online classes started in month of May but these classes were no substitute for physical coaching for which the complainant had paid hefty fees to the OPs.  It is pleaded that within one month of attending the online classes the complainant’s son who had scored 96% in the 10th class told the complainant that he is not understanding the coaching style of OPs. The complainant wife consulted the teacher of the OPs institute but they  had no solution.  The complainant’s requested for refund of the fee several times but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice, this complainant has been filed.  
2.      OPs in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant had enrolled his son for Pinnacle two years integrated school programme for JEE (Advance) after filling the  enrollment form and other allied documents and after understanding the contents contained therein. It is averred that before enrolling the son of the complainant with the OPs institute the complainant as well as his son were provided with counseling session wherein complainant and his son were explained about the terms and conditions of the OPs institute for enrollment and also about the rigorous and continuous conditions hard working required for the preparation of JEE Advance Exam.  It was also informed to the complainant and his son that once the fees paid is neither refundable nor adjustable under any circumstances  as per terms and conditions of the agreement. It is averred that due to COVID pandemic and complete lockdown across  the nation most of the activities  came to stand still  owing to which the teaching and allied schedule of OP institute had delayed by almost a month and the online  classes were the only substitute to the interrupted and continuous preparation for the IIT JEE aspirants during the pandemic of COVID 19.  It is alleged that the son of the complainant could not put the efforts as required by him for preparing for entrance exams, instead the complainant withdrew his son from the OP institute without any plausible reasonable ground. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   
3.      Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.      Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant’s son joined Pinnacle two year integrated school programme  for JEE (Advance) 2022 for which he had paid a total fee of Rs.3,00,090/-. The grouse of the complainant is that the OPs charged the  entire fee in advance alongwith some post dated cheques. As per the complainant the school and class room studies envisaged under the aforesaid pinnacle programme never started in mid April as per schedule due to outbreak of COVID pandemic  and no physical classes were ever started. However, some online classes started that too in the month of May  but these classes were no substitute for physical coaching. The complainant requested for the refund of the fee which was flatly refused by the OPs. This act of Ops forced the complainant to indulge in the present litigation.
7. The stand taken by the OPs is that the complainant opted admission of his son in the pinnacle integrated school programme after understanding the contents of the agreement. As per agreement, fee paid is neither refundable nor adjustable under any circumstances. It is admitted that the schedule for teaching was delayed due to COVID pandemic and there was no other alternative but to arrange online classes only. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.
8. After going through evidence on record it is abundantly clear that the son of the complainant is academically excellent student as he scored 96% in the 10th class and for his bright future the complainant chose the coaching institute of the OPs being a reputed institute of the city.  The motive of the complainant was to provide best possible education to his son through best teachers of the best institute but unfortunately nothing best happened to the complainant as admittedly no physical classes were provided to the son of the complainant as promised by the OPs. It is universal truth that without physical guidance by experts/teachers one cannot attain that knowledge as provided by the Ops in the online classes. But when the complainant sought refund of the fees, the same was denied.
9. We feel that the coaching institution should not act like money collection machine without keeping in mind the feelings and future of the student. The student may not be comfortable with the teaching method/skills and attitude of the teachers at the coaching centre. In case the student leaves in between or midsession or after attending for few days or months, in our opinion, he/she should not be denied refund of the fee for remaining period, which he/she did not attend. If the student is given refund, he/she can pay the said amount to some other educational institute, where he/she wants to pursue coaching or education.  The student is not supposed to pay another hefty amount to other coaching institute after leaving the previous institution. Parent may not be in a position to afford heavy fee of another coaching institute and in such like circumstances the student will be deprived of precious opportunity and formative years of career building. In case the fee is refunded, the student can further move on with that amount to explore much better avenues of education as per his/her desire.
10. In our opinion it is the rosy picture presented by the Opposite Parties which allured the complainant’s son to join the course in question by charging lump-sum fees at the beginning of the course and thereafter the Opposite Parties refused the valid demand of the complainant when the sole purpose of joining the course in first place became infructuous. The services of the OPs were clearly deficient as the sole focus of the Opposite Parties was to extract financial gains by indulging in unfair trade practice owing to which the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental harassment at the hand of Opposite Parties. It is also opined that such terms and conditions as imposed by the Opposite Parties in the present case being one sided cannot be held binding upon the complainant as institute has not justified in charging fee for the entire course in one go.
11.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma 2010(4) CPJ 396 while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 697, held that charging fees in advance beyond the current semester/year would certainly amount to unfair trade practice and the same cannot be countenanced. In Islamic Academy of Education and Another’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had expressed unhappiness with educational institutes charging the entire fees upfront and had said that students should only be asked to pay fees for a semester/year to begin with. The argument of FIIT-JEE that the ruling of Islamic Academy was not applicable to it since it is not an educational institute but only a coaching institute was not negated by the Hon’ble National Commission and order of the State Commission was upheld, directing FIIT-JEE to refund the fees. We may add here that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India condemned the practice of the educational institutes of collecting fee in advance for the entire course i.e. for all the years and also debarred them to claim any interest on the fee deposited. Further the Hon’ble National Commission in FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath, 2012(1) CPJ 194 while considering the revision petition on identical facts, as involved in the present complaint, has categorically held that FIIT JEE Ltd. could not charge full advance fee for Two years and held the complainant entitled for receipt of refund of fee taken in advance from him by FIIT JEE.
12. So far the question of non-refunding the entire fee on account of signing the agreement is concerned it may be stated here that when parents approach some coaching institute to get their ward admitted for coaching, they are supposed to sign the enrolment form and other terms and conditions, which are printed in very small letters. No doubt, the aforesaid clauses are totally one sided and against the interest of the complainant and also did not take care of the second party i.e. the complainant, yet there was no way out but to sign on dotted lines. Therefore, the said enrolment contract is arbitrary.
13. It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently in the case of Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 decided on 02.04.2019 held that incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Bench was considering an appeal against the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it was held that the clause relied upon by the builder to resist the refund claims made by the complainant buyer, were wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable and could not be relied upon. The Hon’ble Apex court held in Paras 6.7 and 7 of the judgment as under:-

“6.7  A term of a contract will not be final and binding, if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 186 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

7.     In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent – flat Purchaser. The Appellant – Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

14. In view of law settled above by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the terms and conditions of the agreement have no binding force on the complainant or his son. Thus there is deficiency on the part of the OPs by not imparting education to the son of the complainant as per their promise and then refusing refund of the deposited fee, which caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and his son.  
15. In the light of above, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs. 3,00,090/-  (after deducting Rs.10% of the paid amount as administrative charges /service charges) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of payment till realization.
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.7,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

16.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
17.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
mp			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member