Delhi

StateCommission

A/577/2015

FIITJEE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NITESH DEWAN - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 29.08.2018

Date of Decision : 07.09.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.577/2015

In the matter of:

 

Fiitjee Ltd.,

29-A Kalu Saraim Sarvpriya Vihar,

New Delhi-110016.

Through its AR Shri Praveen Kumar

 

Also at :-

5^th Floor, Roots Tower,

District Centre Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi-110092.                                                                                        .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Nitesh Dewan (Minor),

S/o. Shri Rakesh Dewan,

R/o. X-2223, Raghubarpura No.1,

Near Gandhi Nagar, Mahila Colony,

New Delhi-110031.

Through Gurardian/ Parent Sunita Dewan                                                            ......Respondent

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The OP has come in the present appeal against order dated 28.10.15 passed by District Forum East allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to refund Rs.1,14,299/- after deducting  cost of books and study material within 45 days failing which it was to pay interest @24% till the date of order to date of refund. Appellant was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation cost. The appellant was directed to return the post dated cheques no.998125 and 998126 both dated 07.02.14 drawn on SBI for Rs.72,135/- and Rs.4,600/- respectively given by the respondents towards fee for the second year of the programme.
2. In appeal the plea of the appellant is that District Forum ignored latest pronouncement of National Commission in cases referred to in ground (c) of the appeal. The parties have agreed to terms and conditions recorded in the enrolment form. Leaving of Institute by the student is not anyway associated with standard of coaching. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka(2003) 6 STC 697 is not applicable as Apex Court observed that institute can ask student to furnish  bond/ bank guarantee so that institute may receive entire fee. National Commission followed the said decision in RP No.4476/13 titled as Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta.
3. Consumer Fora can not go against terms of contract unless the same are illegal as per decision of National Commission in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. Vs. Muthuswamy Duraiswamy  II (2003) CPJ 176. Similar view was taken by National Commission in Apeelay Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok I (2009) CPJ 10.
4. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The judgements relied upon by the appellant are based on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 22532/12 titled as P. T. Kaushik and another vs. Ellen Charitable Trust decided on 09.08.12 on the ground that Educational Institute are not covered under Consumer Protection Act. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjit Kumar (2010) 11 STC 159.
5. The judgements relied upon by the appellant have been considered in subsequent decision of National Commission in WLC College India vs. Ajay S. Bhatt III (2016) CPJ 280, Dhirender Nath vs. M.R. Sarangi I (2015) CPJ 550, R.P. No.3571/13 titled as Gulshan Kumar Vs. Anupama College of Engg. decided by NC on 09.05.17 and Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Paridhi Gupta I (2018) CPJ 628.
6. A distinction has been drawn between Educational Institutions which award, degree or diploma vis-a-vis coaching institutions who simply prepare a student for entrance examination. Coaching institutions do not award any degree or diploma and are not educational institutions.
7. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Edcuation can not be distinguished simply on the ground that institute can ask student to furnish bond/ bank guarantee so that institute can receive entire fee. In the present case the appellant did not ask the respondent to furnish bond or bank guarantee. Rather it received post dated cheques which is in violation of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. The District Forum has rightly observed that respondent had no opportunity to go through the terms and conditions of enrolment, he was at the receiving end. He signed the printed terms and conditions prepared in advance by the appellant. The terms are unreasonable and one sided. That amount to unfair trade practice and can not be permitted.
9. The District Forum has rightly observed that in R.P. No.3365/2006 titled as Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Dr. Shri Minathi Rath decided on 14.11.16, the appellant with a view to escape imputation  of any liability contented that appellant was not covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education as it was not an Educational Institute since it imparts only training and coaching services which have been separately defined under Section 65  Clause (26) and (27) of Finance Act 1994. This shows that appellant has been taking self contracdicatory stand so as to suit its  taste. The same is not permissible .
10. In the present case the respondent attended the classes for 37 days only. The appellant can not retain fee of the whole year for 37 classes only.
11. The District Forum has already restricted amount of compensation to Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.1 lakhs claimed by the respondent. That too includes cost of litigation also.
12.  We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. District Forum. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
13. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
14. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
15. File be consigned to record room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                  

  MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

•