BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.       Sh. Shubham Vij son of Sh.Vijay Kumar Vij, r/o H.No.3924, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, through his guardian and father Sh.Vijay Kumar Vij. 

2.       Sh.Vijay Kumar Vij son of Sh.Des Raj Vij, r/o H.No.3924, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

                                      V E R S U S

1.       M/s FIITJEE Limited through its Managing Director, FIITJEE House Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, Near Houz Khas Bus Terminal, New Delhi – 110016.

2.       Manager/Centre Head, M/s FIITJEE Ltd., SCO No.321-322, 1^st and 2^nd floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Jagvir Sharma,  Counsel for the complainants.

                        Sh.Roopesh Kanwar, Counsel for the OPs

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

               Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant No.1 took admission in Pinnacle 2 years integrated school programme for IITJEE and paid a total sum of Rs.70,058/-. It has been further stated that the OPs had some arrangements with Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh as the space for the studies to be undertaken by the students were to be provided by the said school and as such, the school also charged a sum of Rs.14,350/-. The complainant No.1 started attending the classes from April, 2011.  He came to know that the Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh has been granted provisional recognition till March, 2012 by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The complainant No.2 approached the said school to verify about the affiliation with CBSE but no satisfactory answer was given by the school authorities as well as OPs. The complainant No.2 filed an application under RTI with the CBSE, New Delhi, which was duly replied vide letter dated 4.7.2011 – Ann.C-3.

                It is the allegation of the complainant No.1 that he was compelled to leave Shivalik Public School due to its non-affiliation with the CBSE. The complainant No.2 also approached the school authorities as well as OPs to refund the amount vide letters dated 1.8.2011, 23.8.2011 and 19.9.2011 as well as through e-mails. The complainant No.2 also made a request to the OPs to allow the complainant No.1 to participate in All India Test Series, but all in vain.  The OPs did not refund the amount, despite repeated requests. Hence, this complaint.

2]             OPs filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-à-vis non-joinder of necessary party & jurisdiction, were raised.   On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant took the admission in Pinnacle 2 years integrated classroom programme in the institute of OPs. They had the arrangements with Shivalik Public School for the purpose of providing the space. It has been pleaded that the complainant received the wrong RTI Information dated 4.7.2011 from Public Information Officer, as it did not commensurate with the final order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 25.5.2011. It has been further pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the enrolment form, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of fees. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part.  

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]             Undisputedly, the complainant took admission in OP Institute in 2 Year Pinnacle integrated School Programme for IITJEE and deposited a total sum of Rs.70,058/- in advance as full 2 years course fee.  It is also not disputed that the complainant left the OP Institute in July, 2011 i.e. just after four months of joining the course.

6]             The ld.Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant left the OP Institute due to non-affiliation of Shivalik Public School, with whom OPs- FIITJEE had some arrangements, for providing the space as well as study to the students including complainant No.1; therefore, the complainant No.1 was entitled to the refund of fee of the remaining period, which OPs declined.

7]             On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainant received wrong information about recognition status of the school as the same did not commensurate with the final order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.  It is also contended that as per terms & conditions of the enrollment form, the complainant No.1, is not entitled for refund of fees.

8]             The matter pertaining to advance payment of fees and its consequences have been squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka = (2003) 6 SCC 696 wherein the Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows:-

“It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us mat some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall duo. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.”

9]             The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred above, would, thus override any bilateral agreement between the parties.  It further makes clear that the OPs could not have charged full advance fees for two years and could have charged prescribed fee for one semester/year.  Thus, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fee after deducting the non-refundable service tax for the unattended period of the course.

10]           Reliance has also been placed on the latest decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in R.P. Nos.3365 of 2006, RP No.1805 of 2007, RP No.2660 of 2007, RP No.3496 of 2006 & R.P. No.3497 of 2006 filed by different Petitioners/Institutes including FIIT JEE Ltd. against Respondents/ Complainants/Students, which was decided on 14.11.2011, whereby the said issues were decided in favour of the complainants/consumers/ students and against the Institute like the OPs in the present case.                   

11]           In view of the above discussion as well as settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund the fee of the complainant, excluding the service tax, for the remaining course period, during which the complainant did not avail the services of OPs.  The OPs, jointly & severally, are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and physical harassment to the complainants, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

                   This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay an interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount including compensation amount, till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned, after compliance.