C.C. No. 471/2015

Date of Institution: 04.07.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 09.04.2024

Judgment Passed on: 09.04.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member) On Leave

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this Judgment the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service in not refunding the amount deposited by the complainant for taking coaching from the OP and not providing proper coaching.
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that he was student and was making effort for future and wanted to take admission with the OP for preparation of JEE Main and IIT advance and accordingly took admission with the OP on 14.06.2014 at negotiable course fee of Rs. 72,000/- for one year programme and paid Rs.36,000/- on 14.06.2014, Rs.18,000/- on 04.10.2014 and Rs.18,000/- on 30.10.2014. At the time of admission the OP had assured the complainant and his father that the complainant would get better marks in school and institute is bound to keep in mind that school study of student would not suffer but from the last of July 2014 and First Week of August 2014, the complainant did not feel satisfied to whatever was being taught by the OPs and felt that these classes are not helpful for him and during this period his school performance was not satisfactory and then he wrote email to OP to the refund the fee but OP did not give any satisfactory reply and he again sent email dated 06.04.2015, 12.04.2015, 18.04.2015, 22.04.2015 and 06.05.2015 but the OP did not give any reply and he finally sent detailed email stating that despite of various request and persuasions through emails he could not get any proper response and OP has not settled the matter, therefore the conduct of OP was illegal, uncalled, unwarranted and he filed the present complaint praying that OP be directed to refund Rs. 72,000/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. , compensation of Rs.20,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.7,000/-.   
3. The OP was served and has filed his written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that educational institutes are not providing any kind of service therefore the present complaint case is not maintainable. It is further stated that complainant has not disclosed any cause of action against the OP & it was the complainant who himself had left the coaching institute as he could not cope up with coaching classes with his school studies and even otherwise he has not approached this Commission with clean hands which dis-entitled any discretionary relief to him and it is clarified that the admission of the complainant in ‘one year class room programme’ in the coaching institute of OP was given on 14.06.2014 and one seat was reserved for the batch to be started from July 2014 for the purpose of preparation of JEE examination. The total fee for the above said coaching was Rs.1,24,733/- but complainant was given the seat on discount price of Rs. 72,000/- and he was also allowed to pay the fees in three installments which he did and after taking the classes for approximately 10 months, whereas the total period of classes was of 12 months, the complainant stopped attending the classes and started demanding for refund of balance fee. Further it is stated that had the complainant would not have been able to cope up with coaching classes and if he was not satisfied with the coaching, then he should not have attended the classes till the month of March next year i.e. he attended the classes for around 10 months from the date of start of the coaching & therefore allegations leveled by him are baseless & frivolous on the face of it. Even as per the terms & conditions, undertaking signed in the enrollment form where it was specifically mentioned that student may not leave before completing the full course which the complainant did & therefore there was no deficiency on the part of OP. As far as merits are concerned the fact that OP had given admission of the complainant, payment of fee and attending the classes/course by the complainant are admitted facts and it is further stated that OP has already informed the complainant w.r.t. regular timings of the classes and schedule of the course. It is further stated that OP/complainant has deposited the IInd & IIIrd instalment of fee in October & if he would not have been finding himself comfortable from the very beginning, he would not have deposited the IInd & IIIrd instalment in October 2014 as the course admission had started in July 2014.The present complaint therefore is stated to be false, frivolous and vexatious and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated and the present complaint case of the complainant be dismissed.  
4. Complainant has filed rejoinder has denied the contents of the written statement and reaffirmed & reiterated the contents of the complaint. Complainant has filed his own evidence by way of affidavit and OP has filed evidence of Sh. Sher Singh AR of the OP. OP has also filed written argument.
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records.The facts are quite peculiar and it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for OP that without going into the various other aspects either w.r.t. the jurisdiction of this Commission or w.r.t. the education part, terms & conditions w.r.t. the non-refund policy, terms & conditions w.r.t. the arbitration clause the complaint, on these facts is also not maintainable as after having taken admission in the month July 2014 thereafter classes were started in July 2014, the first written complaint of the complainant is in March 2015 i.e. after attending the class for about 10 months whereas the course was only for 12 months. At that particular time & after attending the classes for about 10 months complainant is asking for the refund of the amount and it is further argued that as per the complainant, he was not satisfied with the coaching process/education system of the OP right from the July 2014 and he had been writing various letters to the OP & even was asking the OP for refund of the amount and it is further argued by OP that had the complainant would not have been satisfied with coaching then he would not deposited the amount in second-third instalments of the course in October 2014, therefore there was no deficiency on the part of OP at any level and it is argued that it is without going into legal objection taken by the OP. The complainant Counsel has argued that the Institutes never gave any response, the complaint were being made oral and the study of the complainant was being adversely affected that too despite having given assurances by the OP that the complainant would perform better after taking its coaching classes which amounts to deficiency in service.
6. The Commission has enquired from the Ld. Counsel for complainant that if the complainant was not able to cope up with pressure right from the July 2014 upto March 2015 then why he deposited the second & third instalment in October 2014 to which Ld. Counsel for complainant had no reply worth appreciating it, which brings to conclusion that there was no deficiency on the part of OP & it is the complainant who was not able to cope up with coaching classes simultaneously with his regular study classes. It is not disputed that complainant has got the admission at discounted price and once the seat reserved by the OP which the complainant had taken at discounted price and after having taken coaching classes for about 10 months no substitution could have been allowed to fill the vacancy left by the complainant. The Commission is also of the opinion that after taking admission/classes for about 9-10 months it does not seem proper on the part of the complainant to make an opinion i.e. the coaching classes was not giving proper coaching and the situation would have been different if the complainant would have left the coaching at the earliest. Therefore from the facts & circumstances it is clear that the complainant has left the coaching of his own after 10 months of joining out of 12 months course and has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OP. Therefore complaint case of the complainant is dismissed.   

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

Announced on 09.04.2024.

File be consigned to Record Room.