PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 261 of 2013, “Sajjan Kumar Gupta versus Manager/Centre Head, FIITJEE Ltd.”, vide which, appeal against the order dated 24.5.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh, in consumer complaint No. 86 of 2013, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.  

2.     Briefly stated, the facts are that the present respondent/complainant Sajjan Kumar Gupta filed the consumer complaint in question, stating that his son Nimish Goel took admission on 22.2.2011 in 4-year Classroom Programme (2011-12-2013) and (2013-14-2015) for FIITJEE Weekend Contact Classes, run by the Chandigarh Centre of the petitioner.  An amount of Rs.26,500/- was paid in advance as fee for the session 2011-12-2013.  In addition, post-dated cheques for an amount of Rs.52,831/- were paid as advance fee for the session 2013-14-2015, which were realized on the due date.  The complainant has therefore, paid a total sum of Rs.79,331/- to the petitioner.  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant came to know about the unethical business practices of the petitioner/opposite party during the session 2011-12-2013, as it advertised fascinating cash Awards/Medals through FIITJEE Talent Reward Examination (FTRE) under fictitious terms and conditions, which could not be fulfilled by anyone to claim such awards.  It is mentioned in the complaint as follows:

        “FIITJEE advertises fascinating cash Awards/Medals through FTRE (FIITJEE Talent Reward Examination) prospectus every year under certain fictitious terms and conditions which cannot be fulfilled by anyone to claim such awards.  These cash awards are offered to new students only just to attract them while the old students getting better FTRE ranks are denied for such awards.  It is also observed that these awards are neither given to old students and nor given to new students but are advertised only as a business tactics.

        That my son Nimish had got 34 All India Rank in FTRE 2011 and as per FIITJEE prospectus he was eligible for the cash award of Rs.125000/- for the coming three sessions but was denied by FIITJEE in the name of above referred fictitious terms and conditions.  Now in the year 2012 my son has again got 38^th All India Rank in FTRE 2012 and becomes eligible for cash award of Rs.100000/- for the coming two sessions and is again denied for the above reasons”.

3.     The complainant stated that when the said awards were not given to his son, he felt demoralized and did not want to continue his studies with FIITJEE and hence, they demanded refund of the money paid for the session 2013-14-2015, well before the commencement of the next session.  The said demand was made through e-mail dated 27.11.2012; whereas the next session was to start in April, 2013.  However, the petitioner refused to refund the said fees, following which, the consumer complaint in question was filed, demanding refund of the amount of Rs.52,831/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.     In their reply before the District Forum, the petitioner stated that the total fees for the course was Rs.1.75 lacs plus service tax, but the son of the complainant was granted fee waiver, as per his ranking in the FIITJEE Talent Award Examination (FTRE), conducted during the year 2010 and he joined the classes in the year 2011-2012.  The appearance of the candidate in the subsequent FTREs conducted during the years 2011 and 2012 was for the purpose of getting feedback ONLY from the students about their preparation, and no scholarship or waiver was given on the basis of marks or rank obtained, as per terms and conditions of the FTRE brochure.  Further, the complainant opted for Fee Plan-3 with minimum fees (906/26 Dec10/CAT2/Plan-3) in which he had to pay less amount in comparison to other plans and therefore, there was no ‘exit’ option.  The fee could not be refunded, therefore.

5.     The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, found the complaint devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.  However, on an appeal filed before the State Commission, the State Commission, vide impugned order, directed refund of Rs.51,831/- and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.  It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

6.     At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a copy of the enrolment report-cum-receipt- course fee issued by M/s. FIITJEE Ltd. in respect of Nimish Goel, son of the complainant, in which the particulars of the course fee charged from the student have been given.  The learned counsel stated that the total amount chargeable from such a student was Rs.1.75 lacs, but 90% waiver had been given to the complainant’s son in the tuition fee.  The student had been charged a total sum of Rs.77,431/- including service tax.  The component of tuition fee was Rs. 82,000/-, out of which 90% of the amount i.e. Rs.73,800/- had been given as a waiver.  The learned counsel stated that the student had attended the course for two years, during which the petitioner had not shown any deficiency in service towards him.  The student is not liable to claim refund if he wants to leave in between.  The learned counsel referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka” (2003) 6 SCC 697, saying that the Institute was competent to charge fees for the entire course in the beginning itself, but as per this order of the Supreme Court, the component of fee for the subsequent years was required to be kept in fixed deposits.  The learned counsel also invited our attention to the order passed by the National Commission in “FIIT Jee Ltd. Vs. Dr. Minathi Rath”, as reported in I(2012) CPJ 194 (NC), in which the above judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed.  The learned counsel further referred to the terms and conditions contained in the FIITJEE enrolment form, saying that the refund could not be allowed, if candidate left the course before completing the same.  Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the order passed by this Commission in RP/270/2006 “Brilliant Classes Vs. Shri Ashbel Sam” in this regard.

7.     In reply, the complainant/respondent, who appeared in person, stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld.  He also stated that the contents of the complaint where it was stated that FIITJEE had denied awards to the successful students were correct and had been taken from the brochures of the petitioner.

8.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  It shall be worthwhile to reproduce the details of the amounts charged from the complainant by the petitioner for admission of his son in the 4-year course run by M/s. FIITJEE Ltd.  The said details as contained in the enrolment –report-cum-receipt-course fee are as follows:

9.     A perusal of the above details show that out of the total tuition fee of Rs.82,000.00, a rebate of 73,800/-, amounting to 90% of the fees was given to the son of the complainant.  The examination fees of
Rs. 8,000/- and (AITS + GMP + RTPF) fee of Rs. 4,000/- was completely waived off, based on the performance of the student in the FTRE Examination.  The only amounts charged from the student are Rs.33,000/- as admission fee, Rs.32,000/- as Infrastructure cost fee and only 10% of the tuition fee.  It is clear therefore, that the contention made by the complainant in his complaint that awards are only promised, but not given, based on performance in FTRE, is not substantiated from the facts on record.  The complainant has stated in his complaint that in the subsequent years as well, the student appeared in FTRE and based on its performance; he was entitled to be given 1.25 lacs in FTRE-2011 and another Rs.1.00 lac for FTRE-2012.  This version of the complainant is not substantiated from record.  The petitioner has stated that the students who are already enrolled are made to appear in the subsequent FTREs examinations, just to obtain feedback regarding their preparation.

10.   In the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka”(Supra), the learned Apex Court have made it very clear that if an Institute had the apprehension that a particular student may leave in midstream, they could get a bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees for the whole course.  Their Lordships have also stated in this judgment that if the fees is collected in advance, the Institute is required to keep it invested in fixed deposits in a Nationalised Bank.  The ratio of this judgment makes it clear that an institute is not debarred from collecting the entire fees in advance.  Moreover, it has not been stated anywhere in this judgment that a student is entitled to get refund, if he leaves the course midstream.

11.   In the instant case, the complainants have not established anywhere whether the petitioner performed any act, which may be termed as deficiency in service or negligence in duty in any manner.  Moreover, the petitioners have only charged the infrastructure cost fee and admission fee and 10% of the tuition fees from the student.  There is no justification for the refund of this fee, if the student has left the course midstream.

12.   It is clear from the observations above that the order passed by the State Commission does not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record.  The State Commission have quoted the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka” (Supra) and also the order passed by this Commission in “FIIT Jee Ltd. Vs. Dr. Minathi Rath” (Supra) and based their order on the decision of the National Commission in the latter case.  However, the view taken by the State Commission is not correct because in the present case, only 10% of the tuition fee was charged from the complainant’s son and there is no justification for refund of the amount of Rs.51,831/- to the complainant.  On the other hand, the order passed by the District Forum reflects a correct appreciation of the facts on record.

13.   In view of the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is confirmed.  The consumer complaint in question stands dismissed with no order as to costs.