NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1301/2016

FIITJEE LTD. & 2 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM P. SAMBHAGI WAKHARDE - Opp.Party(s)

MR. MUKESH M. GOEL, MR. DILIP KUMAR, MR. ABHINAV VERMA & MR. SUDHIR KATHPAILA

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 18/02/2016 in Appeal No. 695/2014 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. FIITJEE LTD. & 2 ORS.
29-A, KALU SARAI, SARVPRIYA, VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110016
2. PRINCIPAL, M/S FIIJTEE LTD.
HYDERABAD CENTRE, 5-9/14-B, SAIFABAD, SECRETARIAT
HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE, NATIONAL ADMISSION DIVISION,
THROUGH ITS A.R. SH. ASHISH KR. AGGARWAL, 1ST FLOOR, DLF, CYBERCITY, BUILDING NO. 10-C, DLF PHASE III,
GURGAON-122002
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. RAM P. SAMBHAGI WAKHARDE
S/O SAMBHAGI WAKHARDE, R/O VAISHNAVI NAGAR, MELAGAON ROAD, TARODA,
NANDED-431605
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Dilip Kumar Arya, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Pradeep R. Tornekar, Advocate

Dated : 04 Feb 2019
ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders dated 18-02-2016 and 19-02-2014 in CC No.695 of 2014 and CC No.132 of 2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’). The State Commission by the impugned orders directed the Petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.1,81,356/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with costs of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,77,373/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of claim till realization together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- respectively.

2.       We may mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and P.T. Koshy Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust 2012 (3)CPC 615 SC have held that the educational institutions, while imparting education to students do not render any service so as to fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable for refund of the balance amount if a student or the Complainant withdraws from the course after attending the same for some period.

3.       However, on a suggestion made by us, showing magnanimity, the Petitioner had offered to give Rs.1,00,000/- as a lumpsum amount to each of the Complainant in the two cases. However, this shall not be treated as a precedent and shall not be made effective on other cases. We appreciate the gesture shown by the Petitioner. The amount be paid within four weeks. The order impugned is set aside.

4.       The Revision Petitions stand disposed of.  

 
......................J
R.K. AGRAWAL
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.