Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/271/2019

Sh. Krishan Vrind Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajan Malhotra Adv.

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	271 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	01.05.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	30.09.2022

 

 

 

 

1]  Sh.Krishan Vrind Jain s/o Sh.Sudhir Kumar Jain, R/o H.No.5118/1, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh being the father and natural Guardian of Master Arnav Jain.

2]  Master Arnav Jain, minor, s/o Sh.Krishan Vrind Jain, R/o H.No.5118/1, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh through her father & natural guardian.    

             …..Complainants

Versus

1]  M/s FIITJEE Limited, FIITJEE House 29-A, Kalu Sari, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi – 110016 through its Director.

2]  M/s FIITJEE Limited, SCO No.321-322, Himalaya Marg, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160022 through its Centre Head.

3]  M/s Megacosm Cognitions Pvt. Ltd., 57, Kalu Sara, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, South Delhi 110017, Delhi India

4]  M/s Edfora Infotech Pvt. Ltd., N 161 A, Saira Tower, 2^nd Floor Gulmohar Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110049.   

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA      PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :-    Ms.Ekta Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Rajan Malhotra, Adv. for the complainant.

 

     Sh.Vivek Lamba, Adv. for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the complainant No.2, son of complainant No.1, a meritorious student, studying in SGGS School, Sector 26, Chandigarh in 11^th Class under FIITJEE Integrated School Programe for securing better result in competitive exams of CBSE & IIT-JEE, was shown rosy picture by OPs about their program for success in IIT-JEE examinations.  Accordingly, the complainant No.2 was enrolled with OP Institute (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.1,60,300/- towards 2 year fee and the same was paid by complainant No.1 and in furtherance of the said process, the complainant  No.1 was further told to pay post-dated cheques which were also given. It is stated that the OPs encashed most of the cheques before the start of the sessions in April, 2018.  It is pleaded that though the entire payment was taken by the OPs from the complainants prior to studies but the education imparted could only be seen when it was actually delivered.  It is further pleaded that since the education as promised by the OPs were not upto the mark, therefore, the OPs were asked to return the total amount and not to present the remaining two cheques lying with them for Rs.20,680/- & Rs.15,000/- respectively (Ann.C-2). It is submitted that despite making due payments as demanded by OPs, the complainant No.1 and his wife were never given any update about the kind of training being imparted to the complainant No.2 by the teachers of the OPs.  It is also submitted that the OPs were apprised time & again that no practical training as well as English & Physical Education classes are being held by teachers.  It is stated that despite the request of the complainant not to present the remaining cheque of Rs.20,680/- and Rs.15,000/-, the OPs got them encashed. It is also stated that the complainants requested the OPs to refund the amount followed by legal notice, but to no avail (Ann.C-3 & C-4). Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant No.1 himself visited OP No.2 for admission of his son Master Arnav Jain, complainant No.2 for preparing him for IIT-JEE (main & Advanced) in the course of OP at Chandigarh.  It is stated that after result of admission test of son of complainant, he was granted 90% scholarship on tuition fee and accordingly offer letter was sent to him.  It is submitted that the fact of issuance of post-dated cheques are not denied as the same were issued towards part payment of remaining fee as the complainant is/was under obligation to pay the complete course fee of two years as per terms of enrolment agreement.  It is also submitted that the complainant himself had choose to withdrew from the course voluntarily without any fault of the OPs and hence cannot blame the OP for any deficiency in service.  It is further submitted that course of OP was one course for preparation of IIT-JEE and other competitive examination and has already been commenced in April, 2016.  It is pleaded that as per terms & conditions agreed by the complainants, the complainant had to intimate in writing if he wished/desired to discontinue from the course on or before 27.9.2017 but he did not do so and chosen to continue with the course program further, as such complainant was under obligation to honour the cheques issued towards the remaining course programs and the OPs accordingly present the said cheques on due dates towards remaining part payment of the course fee and the complainant was not entitled to ask for the return of those cheques.  It is also pleaded that the complainant at the time of issuance of PDCs has also given a declaration cum undertaking for maintaining the fund for honouring the cheque.  It is asserted that the complainant enrolled his son complainant No.2 in Four Year Classroom program for JEE (Advanced) and initially paid the fee for 2 years. It is stated that OP provides specialized coaching/training and guidance for IIT-JEE competitive examination, as the complainant and his son was well aware of it before taking admission in OP Institute. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record including written arguments.

5]       After meticulously going through the submissions and the record before us, we are of the opinion that non-refund of fee to the complainant, as requested on being not satisfied with their coaching, amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. There is no dispute that the complainant attended only few coaching/tuitions classes of the Opposite Parties in the year 2018. 

6]       By not refunding the fee to the complainant, the OPs have also acted in defiance of the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)”, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

“5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’.

6.   The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal.

7.   This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extenso.

“It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.

The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/ Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

 

Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.

                 This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.”

8.   Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.”

 

7]       The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 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.  It is further held by the Hon’ble National Commission that such cases are consumer disputes within the meaning under the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Jai Preet Singh Kaushal Vs. FIIT JEE Ltd., decided on 14.11.2017 – 2018(I) CON LT 536 relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, has also held the charging of fee full in advance for two years course as illegal.

8]      From the above judgments and settled position of law, it is established that OPs had acted unfairly by retaining and not refunding the fee for the unutilized period. It is clear from the orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in above cited judgments that there are specific directions issued not to charge lumpsum amount and also a caution is given that any violation of that order shall be visited with heavy penalty/damages and attract punitive action under the provision of Section 27 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9]      In the light of the above, it has been observed that the Opposite Party was aware of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well Hon’ble National Commission, however, it has blatantly violated the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court and charged Fee for complete course well in advance from the complainant.

10]      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 Law Colleges. 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 his pupil 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 or withdraw himself from the course, for the reasons whatsoever, he cannot be penalized by way of forfeiture of his entire 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.

11]      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 i.e. Rs.1,60,300/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing complaint i.e. 1.5.2019 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 complainants for the mental agony & harassment caused to them 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.20,000/- 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 September, 2022                                                                                                                                                                      

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER