Delhi

New Delhi

CC/308/2012

Pradeep Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Fiitjee Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./308/2012                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Dr. Pradeep Dutta

S/o Late Dr. P.K. Dutta

r/o A-2, Kailash Colony

New Delhi-110048                                          ……..COMPLAINANT

 

 

          

VERSUS

1. The Chief General Manager

National Admissions Office

FIIT JEE House

29A, Kalu Sarai

Sarvapriya Vihar

New Delhi.

 

2. Shri Sailesh Varshney

Sr. Manager Admissions

National Admissions Office

FIIT JEE House

29A, Kalu Sarai

Sarvapriya Vihar

New Delhi.                                               ….....OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

MEMBER: NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

The brief fact of the case are that the complainant son being induces by the OP take a two year classroom program for IIT JEE2013 starting date 16.04.2011 with OP and the batch commencing date was 23.04.2011 having registration no. 1152041120304110011 and enrolment no. 115411113059 on the clear assurance of total success in getting into an IIT with an extremely world class teaching programme in Engineering. It is alleged by the complainant that he made the following payments  :-

1. DD 946495 dt. 08.04.2011 for Rs. 46,326/-
2. DD 946538 dt. 11.04.2011 for Rs. 11,000/-
3. PDC No. 030704 dt. 07.05.2011 for Rs. 4412/-
4. PDC NO. 030705 dt. 07.05.2011 for Rs. 84,380 /-
5. PDC No. 030706 dt. 07.05.2011 for Rs. 4412/-

  It is alleged by the complainant that out of the DDs and PDC deposited with the OP, the OP encashed Rs. 57,326/-. It is alleged by the complainant that his Son attended the classes for three days, during this short period he  become frustrated with the teaching imparted by OP that he not only decided to withdraw from the course  but also given up the study of science totally and take up Economics instead in class XI. It is alleged by the complainant that he wrote a letter dt. 10.05.2011 to the OP vide which he requested the OP not to encashed the PDC issued in its favour , as his son has already left course, and also requested for the amount deposited through DDs. The OP instead of refunding the fee asked the complainant’s son to join the classes immediately and flatly refused to refund the fee under the pretext of clauses mentioned in the Enrolment Form vide its letter dt. 10.06.2011. It is alleged by the complainant that having no other option he instructed his Bank to stop the payment of PDC issued in favour of OP. It is alleged by the complainant that despite his repeated request  and legal notice OP had not refunded the fee paid to it . Hence this complaint.

        Complaint has been contested by OP.Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein, he has corborrated the contents of the complaint. On behalf of OP Sh. Ashish kumar Aggarwal filed his evidence by way of affidavit .

        The short question involved in the present case is whether education institution are covered by Consumer Protection Act. The same stand concluded by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 22532 of 2012 (P.T. Koshy & Ors. Vs. Allen Charitable Trust & Ors.)  decided on 09.08.2012. After considering the previous judgment in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 210 (11) SCC 159 it was held that education is not in commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore is matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

        The complaint is accordingly not maintainable in this Forum. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint. However, the complainant is given liberty to seek redressal of grievance before any other Forum of Civil Court in accordance with law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties by post free of cost.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

        The file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on  _________________

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                        (H M VYAS)                                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                              MEMBER                                                              MEMBER