Delhi

East Delhi

CC/39/2018

SAMRIDHI JOSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARAYANA IIT - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.39/2018

 

 

1.     2.	Ms. Samridhi Joshi D/o Shri Rakesh Joshi.   Master Vaibhav Joshi D/o Shri Rakesh Joshi.   Through their father Sh. Rakesh Joshi R/o 71-F, Pocket-1, Mayukr Vihar – 1, Delhi.	….Complainant
Versus
	NARAYANA IIT/NEET/FOUNDATION ACADEMY Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. 32-E, Patparganj Village, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi – 110091. Through its MD/Director/Principal	……OP

 

Date of Institution:13.02.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 23.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 23.05.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service against OP in not giving proper coaching to his children namely Ms Samridhi Joshi and Master Vaibhav Joshi and after cancelling the coaching admission not refunding the entire amount paid to OP.
2. The Complainant has contended in his Complainant that he admitted his two minor children to the OP Institute for coaching one year program in the last weeks of April, 2017. He paid an amount of Rs.40000/- for each child and had also given PDC Cheques of Rs.12666/-.
3. Upon joining the Coaching Institute of the OP the children  of the Complainant were not feeling comfortable and the standard of the coaching method was not good as per the expectations and children were not satisfied with the coaching.
4. The Complainant therefore on 03.05.2017 orally requested the OP for cancelling the admissions and refund the amount. The Complainant thereafter also made a written request dated 26.09.2017 for refund of the amount. In the meanwhile a cheque of Rs.12666/- was also encashed by the OP and thus OP has received total amount of Rs.92,666/- from the Complainant. On 20.07.2017, Rs.30000/- was refunded to the Complainant by the OP. However, balance amount of Rs.62666/- was not refunded.  Aggreived by the same the Complainant issued Legal Notice dated 12.12.2017 to the OP but no amount was refunded. Thereafter Complainant has filed complaint before this Commission seeking following prayers:-
   • To pass an order/direction the OP to refund the amount of Rs.62,666/- alongwith interest @18% p.a.
   • To pass an order of compensation of Rs.30,000/-for suffering harassment, mental agony, loss of time.
   • To pass an order of litigation charges in favour of the Complainant.
   • To pass any other order which this Forum may deem fit and proper from the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Notice was issued and OP has filed its reply stating Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment in PT Koshy Vs. ELLEN Charitable decided on 09.08.2012 has held that educational institutions are not covered under Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in another case Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that education is not a commodity and hence complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The OP has stated that both the children of the Complainant left their Coaching Institute because they could not cope-up with their coaching classes and schools studies simultaneously. The children of the Complainant took admission in one year Class Room program on 28.04.2017 and paid Rs.92666/- which includes Rs.7392/- as GST, Rs.20000/- as study material and Rs.1995/- as admission fee. After attending the classes approximately for one month both the children of the Complainant stopped attending the classes suddenly and father of the children sent a letter dated 26.05.2017 for refund of the total fees. Though as per the refund policy the refund was not possible, however, after lot of negotiation they agreed to receive Rs.30,000/- towards  full and final settlement. Despite of receiving Rs.30,000/- Complainant has filed complaint before this Forum.  OP has also relied upon copy of Enrollment Form and Refund Policy and ADM-RES Cancellation Form bearing signatures of the son of the Complainant. The OP has contended that it is maintaining higher standard of education and has gained credibility amongst the students all over India and the children of the Complainant blocked two seats in their Coaching Institute and later withdrew themselves is thereby deprived two deserving students to have the coaching. The children of the OP attended 24 classes and thereafter stopped coming to institute and sent letter dated 26.05.2017 withdrawing from the Coaching Institute which is against the Terms & Conditions and the complaint filed by the Complainant to be dismissed.
6. Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the reply of the OP and has denied sending letter dated 26.05.2017 to the OP and has reiterated the contents of this complaint.
7. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has exhibited the following documents:
   • Copy of receipt of payment as exhibit as CW1/1.
   • Copy of letter dated 26.05.2017, 13.06.2017 and other reminder letters and postal receipt as exhibit CW1/2 to CW1/5.
   • Copy of representation dated 02.08.2017 alongwith postal receipt and track report as exhibit CW1/6 to CW1/8.
   • Letter dated 02.08.2017 as exhibit CW1/9.
   • Email dated 31.10.2017 as exhibit CW1/10.

 

8. OP has filed its evidence by way of affidavit marking the following document as exhibit –
9. • Copy of Enrollment Form, Refund Policy and ADM/RES Cancellation Form bearing signature the son of the Complainant as exhibit RW I/Colly.

 

9. This Commission has heard the argument at length of both sides and perused the record.
10. The Complainant has stated in his Complainant that his children Ms Samridhi Joshi and Master Vaibhav Joshi (both minor at the time of filing the complaint) took admission in the Coaching Institute of OP under one year Weekend Class Room program in April, 2017 and they paid Rs.92666/- to the OP. However, due to some problems his children for not feeling comfortable and on 03.05.2017 he made oral request for cancellation of the admission and refund the full amount which was followed by another oral request on 08.05.2017. When no refund was received, the Complainant wrote letter dated 26.05.2017 (CW1/2) and thereafter he received Rs.30,000/- from the OP. However, the balance amount of Rs.62,666/- was not refunded to him.
11. On the perusal of the Enrollment Form filed by the OP (RW I/Colly) it is observed that both the children of the Complainant took admission in the institute of the OP for JEE Exam coaching under Week-end Class Room Program. As per the Refund Policy (RW I/Colly) which is signed by the Complainant, in case of withdrawal of admission after paying the fees or any course the refund is specified as under:

                                       REFUND POLICY

If student after paying the fees for any course wants to withdraw and seek refund within the specified tenure, the following criteria would be applicable:

Tenure of the Programme / Course – One year
	Students seeking refund before the commencement of the said course		Admission fee will be deducted and the Balance amount will be refunded.
	Student seeking refund within 10 days from the date of commencement of the course.		Admission fee + 10% of the Course Fee will be deducted and the Balance amount will be refunded.
	Student seeking refund within 11-20 days from the date of commencement of the course.		Admission fee + 20% of the Course Fee willbe deducted and the Balance amount will be refunded.
	Students seeking refund after 20 days from the date of commencement of the course.		No refund would be made of the amount on any grounds.

 

This document has been duly signed by the Complainant.

12. It is not disputed that both the children of the Complainant attended coaching classes in the institute of OP after taking admission. As per Enrollment Form admission was taken by both children on 28.04.2017 and Fees was also paid that time only. The Complainant has further stated that he made request on 03.05.2017 as well as on 08.05.2017 requesting for withdrawal admission of his children however there is no supporting document filed by the Complainant corroborating this fact and the Complainant has filed letter dated 26.05.2017 (CW1/2) which is received by the OP wherein he has stated that his children are not interested to continue the classes as they do not have enough time for self study and they cannot manage the school classes and coaching classes.
13. If date of Enrollment and payment of fees (RW I/Colly) is  considered for starting the classes in the Coaching Institute of OP then the date is 28.04.2017 and the letter written by the Complainant is dated 26.05.2017 which indicates that on record first time request for withdrawal of admission was made on 26.05.2017 (after 28 days) which is more than the Refund Policy period i.e. after 20 days (RW I/Colly) from the commencement of the Coaching and Complainant was not eligible for any refund. However it is a matter of record that OP refunded Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant.
14. Though the Complainant is alleging reason that standard of coaching method is not good and his children were not satisfied however, in his letter dated 26.05.2017 no such averment has been made rather it has been stated in the said letter that the children do not have enough time for self study and they cannot manage the school classes and the OP institute classes and that is why request of cancellation  of the admission was made and refund was sought.
15. From the above facts it is evident that neither the Complainant had filed letter for cancelling the admission within the stipulated time period for refund of Fees as mentioned in the Refund Policy which is signed by the Complainant nor the reason given in the letter dated 26.05.2017 is that the coaching method was not good or was there any deficiency in imparting coaching to the Complainant’s children.
16. Under these circumstances this Commission holds that the complainant has not been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP rather it was the children of OP complaint who were not able to cope-up with the school studies and OP studies classes simultaneously. The cases cited by the OP in its reply are not para-materia to the facts of this case.
17. For the reason stated in the above paras, this Commission holds that the Complainant is not able to establish deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint filed by him is therefore Dismissed.

Copy of this Order be supplied to parties free of cost as per Rules.

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 23.05.2023