Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/30/2021

Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ritika Rana - Opp.Party(s)

K. S. Kohli Adv.

10 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	30 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	30.03.2021
Date of Decision	:	10.05.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training, SCO 118-120, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Ritika Rana D/o Subhash Chand R/o Village Panjkura, P.O. Nangal, Tehsil Fatehpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-  

Sh. Keshav Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed by the opposite party, namely, Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training (appellant herein) against order dated 04.03.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.7 of 2020 filed by the complainant, namely, Ritika Rana (respondent herein) has been partly allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-

“10.   For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.37,000/- (after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards administrative charges) to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay Rs.7500/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.7500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

11.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].” 

2.      The brief facts, as culled from the impugned order passed by the District Commission, were that respondent (Ritika Rana) took admission in Diploma in Aviation Hospitality and Travel in appellant-Institute, duration whereof was one year and the batch was to start from 01.05.2019. Against the total fee of Rs.1.50 lakhs, the respondent paid Rs.38,000/- vide Annexure C-1 & C-2. However, due to some family problem, she could not join the said course and on 01.05.2019, requested the appellant to refund the amount. She also raked up her grievance with the Head Office of the appellant vide e-mail dated 06.05.2019. To her surprise, the appellant vide return e-mail dated 06.05.2019 refused to refund the amount.  Hence, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant.

3.        On the other hand, the appellant/Opposite Party, in its reply,  while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the respondent took admission of her own free will only after careful reading and understanding the terms and conditions for admission. It was further stated that she was fully aware about the non-refundable clause with respect to the fee amount and as such, refund was refused.

4.      The order passed by District Commission has been assailed on the ground that the District Commission acted with material irregularity in recording its findings and conclusions against the appellant and the same are contrary to law and facts on record. It has further been stated that the District Commission also erred in passing the impugned order without dealing with the propositions of law involved in deciding the subject issue, which was raised by the appellant before it and the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. It has further been stated that the District Commission erred in erroneously holding that both the parties have filed evidence but there is no evidence on behalf of either of the parties. It has further been stated that the respondent is not a consumer of the appellant and does not fall within the definition of consumer as no service has been provide to her by the appellant. To support this contention, the appellant placed reliance on Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. Dr. Virendra Swarup Public School and anr., First Appeal No.852 of 2016 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 02.02.2021 and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. Dr. R. R. Azad and 10 others, Revision Petition No.633 of 2018 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 11.11.2019. It has further been stated that further in Manu Solanki & Ors. vs. Vinayaka Mission University & Ors., I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), Regional Institute of Cooperative Management versus Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Shitanshu Ranjan, III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC), FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. S. Balavignesh, III (2015) CPJ 112 (NC) & FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Daya Chand Prasad, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 491, it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that education is not a commodity and in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has further been stated that in Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) vs. Mukul Srivastava, Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014 decided on 17.01.2014, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the student under such circumstances is not a consumer. It has further been stated that it has been clearly mentioned in the e-Prospectus that leaving the course in between would make the student liable to pay the balance course fee and in such case, no claim of refund of fee paid by the student shall be entertained and the same shall stand forfeited. It has further been stated that the respondent attended the classes at the appellant – Institute for few days and due to unforeseen circumstances at her home, she left the course abruptly. The appellant – Institute has also raised certain questions of law to the effect that (i) Is Education a commodity and are the educational institutes providing any service?; (ii) Is student a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act?; (iii) Is student entitled to refund of fee once he/she has been informed by way of executed documents/undertaking/declaration that fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances? & (iv)Whether the District Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter in view of specific clause to the effect that the Courts at Delhi have the sole jurisdiction to entertain the matter? Further referring to Clause 41 (Declaration Clause), it has been stated that the respondent is not entitled to any refund. Lastly, prayer for setting aside of the impugned order has been made by the appellant – Institute.

5.      On the other hand, in the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant, it has been stated that the appellant unnecessarily dilly dallied the matter with the intention to harass the respondent and usurp her hard earned money. It has further been stated that despite request, the appellant failed to refund the amount. It has further been stated that the impugned order is well reasoned and sustainable in the eyes of law. Lastly, stating that the District Commission has rightly partly allowed the complaint and ordered refund of the fee, prayer for dismissal of appeal with costs has been made by the respondent/complainant.

6.      After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, impugned order and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

7.     Before dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal, we would like to first decide the objections raised by the appellant – Institute with regards to the respondent not being a consumer and the District Commission not having the jurisdiction to entertain the matter in existence of specific clause that the Courts at Delhi will have the sole jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

8.      So far as the contention raised on behalf of the appellant – Institute that the respondent is not a consumer and it (appellant) is not a service provider, it may be stated here that this objection of the appellant has no legs to stand in view of pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 04.04.2019 in Revision Petition No.3052 of 2018 – Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training & Anr. Vs. Aashima Jarial, wherein, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are the service provider. Relevant Paras 14 & 15 of the said judgment reads thus:-

“14.   From the above, it can be concluded that the educational institutions, which are imparting education of any kind within the admissible legal frame work of the country can be covered under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra).  In other words, educational institutions covered under UGC, AICTE, State Universities, Central Boards and State Boards etc. can claim immunity from the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for educational services.  Moreover, the State Commission has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Budhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. Bhupes Khurana & Others, wherein the following has been observed:-

"32. The Commission also held that this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) held as under: [para 118 at page 583]:-

"...In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry..."

The Commission further held as under:

    "Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act."

15.    From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner institution cannot be given advantage of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra).

16.    Based on the forgoing discussions, it is concluded that the complainant is a consumer and the petitioner institution is a service provider in the present case.”   

          Not only above, the Hon’ble National Commission in a recent judgment in the case of L.B.S. Group of Education Vs. Arjun Singh & Ors., Revision Petition No.544 of 2020 decided on 31.08.2020 has held in Paras 44 & 45 as under:-

                “45. We are of the considered view that conduction of Coaching Classes does not fall within the ambit of definition of 'Education' as defined by the Hon'ble Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (Supra). Coaching Centres cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute and also by the concerned Universities. Therefore, strictly speaking Coaching Centres cannot fall within the definition of 'Educational Institutions'. We refrain from making any comments on the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Complainants with respect of Coaching Institutions indulging only in 'rote learning'.

                46. For all the afore-noted reasons, we are of the opinion that any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like 'Coaching Centres' does fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.”

          Thus, in view of above settled law, the objection raised by the appellant stands rejected.

9.      The next objection raised by the appellant that the District Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter in existence of specific clause that the Courts at Delhi have the sole jurisdiction to entertain the matter, stands rejected being not sustainable in view of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which stipulates that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

10.    As regards the contention raised by the appellant – Institute that education is not a commodity and in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of judgments in the case of Manu Solanki  & Ors. vs. Vinayaka Mission University & Ors. (supra), Regional Institute of Cooperative Management versus Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Shitanshu Ranjan (supra), FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. S. Balavignesh (supra) & FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Daya Chand Prasad (supra), it may be stated here that in L.B.S. Group of Education’s case (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission has made it very clear that conduction of Coaching Classes does not fall within the ambit of definition of 'Education' and they cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute and also by the concerned Universities. Therefore, admittedly, the present appellant – Institute being a coaching centre does not come under the ambit of education and can very well be tried for deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice on its part in so far as the respondent/complainant is concerned. The argument raised stands rejected. 

11.    Now coming to the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent/complainant took admission in the appellant – Institute in one year Diploma in Aviation Hospitality and Travel and paid a sum of Rs.38,000/- on 29.04.2019. The course was to commence on 01.05.2019 but due to some family problem, she could not join the said course and accordingly, requested the appellant to refund the amount, which was refused in view of terms and conditions/declaration signed by the complainant, as per which, fee once paid was not refundable. The question now left to be determined by us, is, as to whether refund of fee as ordered by the Forum vide the impugned order was justified or not. The answer to this question is in affirmative due to the simple reason that the terms and conditions/declaration signed by the complainant is one sided and biased totally in favour of the appellant and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice.  The appellant being a coaching centre indulged into unfair trade practice by not refunding the fee paid by the complainant and tried to usurp the same, which was her hard earned money. We opine that the respondent/complainant is definitely entitled to refund of fees as ordered by the Fora below vide the impugned orders.

12.    It may also not be out of place to mention here that after thoroughly discussing the import of two judgments i.e. Bihar School Education Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC) and Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra), this Commission in First Appeal No.219 of 2018 titled ‘Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training & Anr. Vs. Aashima Jarial’, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2018, in Para 10 to 12, inter-alia, held as under:-

“10.        It was specifically said that the Board was not carrying any commercial, professional or service oriented activity and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable, in such like cases before the Consumer Fora. However, it was also observed in later part of the judgment that ratio of a judgment is not mechanically to be applied to other case, without analysing the context in which observations were made by the Court in a given judgment. Same was the situation in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University (supra). In that case also, there was a dispute between the Authorities and student qua grant of B.Ed. degree to her. By taking note of observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (Supra) it was said that Statutory Authority when performing statutory functions cannot be termed as service provider/industry.

11.        In the present case, as has been noted in earlier part of this order, the appellant have no statutory regulations/backing. It is a private Institute, not discharging any social obligation. In such like cases, we are of the considered opinion that no benefit of ratio of the judgments cited above, can be extended in favour of the appellant.

12.        The case of the respondent is also supported by the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital, Versus Bhupesh Khurana & Others, Civil Appeal No.1135 of 2001, decided on February 13, 2009, wherein, the findings given by the National Commission, to the effect that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, were upheld. Relevant part of the said judgment reads thus:-

“The Commission also held that this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) held as under: [para 118 at page 583]:-

"...In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry..."

The Commission further held as under:

"Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act."

33. The Commission rightly came to the conclusion that this was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the institute which tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The respondents were admitted to the BDS Course for receiving education for consideration by the appellant college which was neither affiliated nor recognized for imparting education. This clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, which defines the `deficiency' as under:

"`Deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

34. Therefore, the Commission rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the institute and the claimants respondents are entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the plaint. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.”

13.        Not only as above, in the case of Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St.Mary’s Academy and Anr., Revision Petition No.3144 of 2016, the National Commission has also held that in some aspects of education activities, the Consumer Fora is competent to take action against the erring Educational Institutes such like the opposite parties, adopting unfair trade practices and also not rendering proper service. Same is the ratio of the judgment decided by the National Commission, in Jaipreet Singh Kaushal Vs. FIIT JEE Limited and another, Revision Petition No.918 of 2015 decided on 14.11.2017, wherein, it was held that the Institute is not justified in charging fee, for the entire course in one go…………”

13.    The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3052 of 2018 titled ‘Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess & Anr. Vs. Aashima Jarial’, decided on 04.04.2019, while upholding the above order passed by this Commission in the Appeal No.219 of 2018 held in Paras 14 to 17 as under:-

“14.   From the above, it can be concluded that the educational institutions, which are imparting education of any kind within the admissible legal frame work of the country can be covered under the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra).  In other words, educational institutions covered under UGC, AICTE, State Universities, Central Boards and State Boards etc. can claim immunity from the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for educational services.  Moreover, the State Commission has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. Bhupes Khurana & Others, wherein the following has been observed:-

“32. The Commission also held that this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) held as under: [para 118 at page 583]:-

"...In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry..."

The Commission further held as under:

    "Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.”

15.    From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner institution cannot be given advantage of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra). 

16.    Based on the forgoing discussions, it is concluded that the complainant is a consumer and the petitioner institution is a service provider in the present case.  

17.    It is seen from the order of the District Forum that the District Forum has ordered refund of Rs.14,000/- as fee  along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.  The order of the District Forum is based on equity and therefore, the complainant would be only entitled to the refund of fees paid as directed by the District Forum and the cost of litigation. In the circumstances of the case, I do not see any justification for awarding any further compensation. Consequently, the order of the District Forum in respect of the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties is set aside.  However, the remaining order of the District Forum regarding refund of Rs.14,000/- and payment of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost is maintained.  This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt/service of this order. No notice to the respondent has been issued in the matter keeping in view the amount involved in the present case and to save the respondent’s further expenses on litigation.  However, if the respondent complainant feels aggrieved by this order the respondent can approach this Commission.”

14.    The Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order qua refund of fee to the student as ordered by the Forum and upheld in appeal by us by giving detailed judgment. Thus, the award of District Commission, as upheld by this Commission in appeal, has become final up to the Hon’ble National Commission.

15.   Not only above, further in Para 17, this Commission held as under:-

“17.         We may also mention that coaching classes are just befooling & cheating students with tall claims by flashing through advertisements in newspapers and brochures etc. that their classes are achieving 70% to 90% or 100% results. The ugly face is that they make assurances for students that their career is secured but unfortunately, these are just gimmicks to attract young minds and swindle money in the name of education. They are playing with the lives of many innocent students. It will not be out of place to mention here that in this competitive world, everyone intends to perform well in life and there are no easy short cuts. What quality education means? Every child or a student has his/her own ability to understand the things and when it comes to studies, we can say with confidence that five fingers cannot be equal or at par. Coaching industry is booming in India, a multi billion industry now. It’s a rat race and everyone wants to outshine others. Coaching Centres for professional courses, which have mushroomed across the Country, are notorious for harassing students over fees and issuing misleading advertisements about their achievements which create false hope and even lead to suicides amongst students. Sometimes, innocent parents get allured by results of coaching institute published in any type of advertisement and trust it with blind eyes despite the fact that it might be a trick to lure students and their parents to get admission into the institute. After paying hefty fee of coaching institutes by shelling money from hard earned savings and at times by raising loans etc., poor parents, who are always concerned about the carrier of their children, would not think of going to Courts and knock the doors of justice to get their money back because every penny of hard earned money means to them.”

16.           Further in Paras 20 to 23, it was further held, inter-alia, as under:-

“20.         As regards the argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite parties that the complainants are not entitled to any refund in term of provisions of Clauses 8 and 10 of the enrolment form, which was duly signed by them at the time of taking admission with opposite parties No.1 & 2, we would like to extract aforesaid clauses as under:-

“8. I undertake that if I leave the Institute midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to transfer of my father/mother/legal guardian/ill health of myself or any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/course/engineering college etc. I or my father/mother/legal guardian shall not be entitled for refund of fees.

10.    In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be, nor is it adjustable towards any other existing courses at FIITJEE or any yet to be launched nor towards the fee of any other existing or prospective student.”

21.           It is a fact that when parents approach some coaching institute to get their ward admitted for coaching, they are supposed to sign the enrolment form and other terms and conditions, which are printed in very small letters. No doubt, the aforesaid clauses are totally one sided and against the interest of the complainants and also did not take care of the second party i.e. the complainants, yet there was no way out but to sign on dotted lines. Since complainant No.2 is minor, therefore, the said enrolment contract is void abinitio qua her.

22.           It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently in the case of Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018 decided on 02.04.2019 held that incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Bench was considering an appeal against the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it was held that the clause relied upon by the builder to resist the refund claims made by the co0mplainant buyer, were wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable and could not be relied upon. The Hon’ble Apex court held in Paras 6.7 and 7 of the judgment as under:-

“6.7  A term of a contract will not be final and binding, if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 186 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

7.     In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent – flat Purchaser. The Appellant – Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.”

23.           Therefore, in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the aforesaid enrolment contract or the above clauses have no binding force on the complainants……”

17.    Therefore, in view of above, the contentions raised, in the instant appeal, on behalf of the appellant – institute with regard to the non-refund of fee by the appellant – Institute on leaving the Course at its initial stage in view of terms and conditions and declaration also stands rejected.

18.              Not only above, the coaching institutes should make their curriculum so that the student develops his personality apart from only intellectual/knowledge but now they are turning into depression centres. Rather, these coaching centres should think and act in the larger interest of public and specially students, who approached these coaching centres and pay hefty fees with the hope of getting better coaching for higher entrances examinations and all assistance in case, he/she failed to cope up with the said system of imparting coaching. Instead of              showing concern to their students, coaching centres are showing their focus on hefty fees, which they are charging in advance for the full course, whether it is of two or four years. They should ponder regarding the hard earned money of the parents, whether rich, mediocre or poor, who pays such hefty fees with the hope that his/her children would get better coaching in such centres, which would help them to crack down entrance examinations for higher education. Some parents obtain loan and some pay from their hard earned savings or salaries the hefty fees for their children to the coaching centres. Therefore, these coaching centres have no right to forfeit the fees in case, the student failed to cope up with the said coaching system or feels that the coaching imparted is not up to the mark and he/she is not getting any personal attention or assistance when needed. Therefore, this Commission seriously feels that it is in the interest of general public that the coaching centres refund the fees for the period, the student did not attend the classes.

19.    In our concerted view, the District Commission rightly partly allowed the complaint of respondent/complainant by holding in Para 8 & 9 as under:-

“8.     In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that once the Complainant did not attend even a single class, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party to refund the fees paid by her, after deducting reasonable administrative charges. Pertinently, the Opposite Party cannot claim any prejudice caused to them when the Complainant did not attend the course in the OP-Institute. It is settled proposition of law that no fee (including advance fee) can be illegally held by the Opposite Party for the period for which no coaching/service is being availed by the Complainant.

9.        It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have refunded the booking fees after deducting the reasonable administrative charges, which it failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.”

20.    Therefore, in our considered view, the District Commission rightly partly allowed the complaint vide the order impugned, which does not suffer from any infirmity or material irregularity and is based upon true appreciation of facts and settled law on the subject.

21.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant – institute is dismissed with no order as to costs. MA/288/2021 for stay of the impugned order also stands dismissed having become infructuous.

22.    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

23.    The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

10.05.2022.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad