Date of Filing: 28-12-2017
Date of Order: 26-11-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MALE MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM., LADY MEMBER
Tuesday, the 26th day of November, 2019
C.C.No.7 /2018
Between
Master K.Manjunatha Reddy ( Minor),
Rep. by his mother Mrs.K.Sandhya Rani
Aged about 37 years, Occ: Home Maker,
R/o.H.No.T 2-1423’ , 8 Incline Colony,
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar – 505211 (T.S) ……Complainant
And
- M/s. FIITJEE
National Admission Office : FIITJEE House,
29-A,Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi- 110 016 , Rep. by its CEO
- M/s. FIITJEE Branch Office:
5-914/B
Sahara Manzil Building,
Saifabad, Adjacent to Hotel Amrutha Castle,
Hyderabad – 500 004
Rep. by its branch Head ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri G.V.S.Prasad Rao
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Sri Rupendra Mahendra
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that refusal to refund the entire amount to the complainant with interest at 18% P.A from the date of payment of the same by the complainant to the date of payment and to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony, pain and stress on account of refusal to refund the fee amount and to award a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses incurred by the complainant.
1. The complainant’s case in brief is that having impressed with the publicity and advertisement of opposite party institute he joined for the two years integrated program for IIT-JEE with the opposite party institution and paid a sum of Rs.2,59,650/- by way of account transfer from the parents accounts during period 23rd and 27th February 2017. After joining in the institution the complainant was not provided with any guidance to cope up with the other students due to lack of foundation which was promised at the time of giving admission the complainant felt strain and stress when the assignments not completed he was subjected to humiliation before other students. The food provided in the hostel was not of standard quality and it effected the health of the complainant and he suffered with Dengu fever and was admitted in the hospital in the month of July 2017.
The complainant parents having learnt about the difficulties faced by the complainant approached the opposite party institution and enquired as to why guidance , support and foundation course was not provided to the complainant as promised. But there was no response. There is change of pattern in the opposite party Institute in teaching and other conditions. In the hostel no tutor was available for the complainant to clear his doubts or help him in solving the problem. Complainant was again fell sick and was taken to the medical officer who after examination informed that complainant went under depression. Huge amount was spent for regular counseling to the complainant. Having seen all these facts a request made with the opposite party institute to refund the fee collected and cancel the admission. Letters were also addressed to the opposite party to that affect but opposite party refused to refund the fee and it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint.
2. Resisting the complaint opposite party filed written version admitting giving admission to the complainant in the two years integrated program for IITJEE but denied the rest of the complainant’s allegation.
The stand of the opposite party is it is an Educational Institution imparting quality education to the students aspiring to get admission into various IITs in the country. In the last 25 years it has been the pioneer in this field and is known National wide for shaping the careers of the students all over the country. The education is not a commodity and as per law laid down by the Apex court and also National Commission a consumer complaint is not maintainable against the education institution as education institutions are not providing any kind of service, hence in the matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and Consumer Forums cannot entertain the consumer complaint against Education institutions.
The complainant and his mother have given an undertaking at the time of complainant’s admission agreeing for the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. As per the said terms the fees paid shall not be refunded in case of voluntarily withdrawal of the students from the institution.
The complainant joined in the institution for the two years integrated program from 2017 to 2019 after having qualifying in the admission test conducted on 25-12-2016. The complainant withdrew voluntarily from the course he opted to pursue and now demanding for the refund of fee which is not refundable as per the terms and conditions of the enrollment form duly signed by him and his mother. The opposite party has performed their part of contract by providing quality education and it has been running the course successfully and no other student left the institution on the ground of deficiency of service. Failure to cope up with the studies by the complainant cannot be attribute on account of institutions or its faculty. The seat which was filled up by the complainant is now left open in view of the withdrawal of the complainant and same could be offered to any other student as such the same is left open causing loss to the opposite party institution. The faculty employed by the institution are well trained and qualified, and are always available to clarify the doubts to the students. At no point of time the complainant informed the institution that he got any doubt in any subject and needs clarification. The faculty is always there to clear the doubts of the students entertained by them hence the allegation made in that regard by the complainant are false. While counseling the students and parents the opposite party had clearly specified that the questions and doubts can be asked and discussed in the class and the same is being strictly followed in the institution. He was also informed during the counseling that some hours can be used for clearance of doubts in classes for examinations purpose and the students availed the same. The teaching in the institution is concept based which helps the students understand the basics which are important when the problems need to be solved. The opposite party institution always encourages the students to seek clarification of doubts by raising questions in the class rooms. The opposite party institution does not insult any student in front of other students as such the allegation made to that effect are absolutely false. Since fee collected from the complainant towards admission, hostel and teaching is non-refundable the request of the complainant to refund the same was rejected and it does not amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
In the enquiry, the complainant’s mother filed her evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same she got exhibited six (6) documents . Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of one Sri Vijay Waghray, stated to be General Manager of opposite party No.1 institution is got filed and the substance of the same in line with the stand taken in the written version and through him nine (9) documents are exhibited. Both sides have filed written arguments
On a consideration of material brought on the record the following points have emerged for consideration :
- Whether refusal to refund the fee amount paid to the opposite party institution amounts to unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant can maintain the present complaint before this Forum ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The main defence of the opposite party is the complainant and his mother as his guardian have signed in enrollment form i.e.,Ex.B1 containing terms and conditions and it is a concluded contract between the parties. Both the parties are bounded by the terms of it. As per the clause 10 of Ex.B1 fee once paid is not refundable for whatever reasons nor adjustable towards any other course of institution. Clause 15 speaks that the signatories i.e, the complainant’s mother have fully satisfied themselves with regards to quality and excellence of teaching at the institution from all available information and sources and they have decided to study in the opposite party institution. In the light of this specific clause in Ex.B1 it is not open to the complainant to say that there is no faculty or teaching in the opposite party institution to clarify the doubts or causing humiliation on account of not completing the assignment given etc. In the light of prohibition in clause 10 the complainant cannot seek refund of the fee as there is a concluded contract between the parties. Acting as per the terms of contract does not amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2: The main defence of the opposite party is as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions a consumer complaint is not maintainable against the education institutions. Because education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties in support of his arguments that in the matter of admission fee etc a consumer complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum placed reliance in the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also National Commission.
The Apex Court in the case of P.T.vc Koshy & Anr Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors in SLP No.22532/2012 held as under:
In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs.Naveen Kumar Chowdary and Maharishi Dayanand University Vs.Surjith Kaur – 2010 (11) SCC page 159. The Apex Court in this case held that education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students therefore in the matter of admission fee etc there cannot be conclusion of deficiency of service . Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Acct, 1986.
In the case of P.T.Koshy and another Vs.Ellen Charitable Trust and others . The Hon’ble Supreme Court while following the judgment in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs.Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC held that education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students therefore in the matter of admission fee etc there cannot be a question of deficiency of service .
The Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.465/2012 in the case of Fiitjee Vs. Dayachand Prasad while placing reliance in the P.T.Koshy and another Vs.Ellen Charitable Trust and others held that education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students. Similarly in the case of FIIT JEE Vs. Simridhi Choudhry in F.A No.814/2008 The Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in the case of Brilliant Classes Vs.Shri Ashbel Sam in R.P.No.270 of 2006 decided on January 29, 2010. The other cases upon which learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance are APEEJAY Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs.Prashant Ashok (I 2009 CPJ 10 NC Bhojia Dental College & Hospital & others Vs. AMAN DEEP SINGH (II (2009) CPJ 226)
RAMDEOBABA ENGINEERING COLLEGE VS. SUSHANT YUVRAJ RODE & ANR, III (1994 CPJ 160 NC). The Hon’ble National Commission in the R.P.4476 of 2013 in Fiitjee Vs.Sajjan Kumar Gupta held that complainant is not entitled for the refund of the infrastructure cost fee and admission fee and 10% of the Tution fee from the student, if the student had left the course mid stream . In the light of this case law a consumer complaint under Section 12 of C.P.Act is not maintainable before this consumer Forum in respect of educational Institutions because education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for refund of the admission fee paid and also compensation.
Point No.4: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 26th day of November , 2019
LADYMEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy enrolment Acknowledgment sheet
Ex.A2- enrolment report dt.5/3/2017
Ex.A3- letter of opposite party dt.22/6/2017
Ex.A4 &5- medical reports dt.28-7-2017, 29-7-2017
Ex.A6 – receipt dt. 1-9-2017
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1- copy of enrolment form dt.18-1-2017
Ex.B2- fee calculation sheet dt.4-3-2017
Ex.B3& B4- cyber receipts dt.18-1-2017
Ex.B5- enrolment acknowledgment
Ex.B6- Hall ticket cum test fee receipt
Ex.B7- letter of opposite party
Ex.B8- letter from the complainant dt.17-6-2017
Ex.B9- letter of opposite party to the complainant dt.22-6-2017
LADYMEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
