STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.    M/s FIITJEE Limited, Registered Office at Vashist House, 29A, Kalu Sarai, Near Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi.

2.    Manager/Centre Head, M/s FIITJEE Ltd., SCO No.321-322, 1st and 2nd floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

1.    Subham Vij son of Sh.Vijay Kumar Vij, R/o H.No.3924, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, through his father and natural guardian.

2.    Sh.Vijay Kumar Vij son of Des Raj Vij, r/o H.No.3924, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents/complainants

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Rahul Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh. Vishal Bali, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.07.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), jointly and severally, as under:-

“In view of the above discussion as well as settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund the fee of the complainant, excluding the service tax, for the remaining course period, during which the complainant did not avail the services of OPs.  The OPs, jointly & severally, are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and physical harassment to the complainants, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay an interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amount including compensation amount, till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-“.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that complainant No.1 took admission, in Pinnacle 2 years Integrated School Programme for IITJEE, in the Institute of Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant no.1), and paid a total fees, to the tune of Rs.70,058/-. The Opposite Parties made arrangements with Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, for providing space for the students, who had taken admission in their course, for studies. The said school charged a sum of Rs.14,350/-. Complainant No.1 started attending the classes, from April, 2011. He came to know that Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, had been granted provisional recognition, till March, 2012. Complainant No.2, approached the said School, to verify about its  affiliation, with the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (hereinafter to be refereed as the CBSE, New Delhi only), but no satisfactory reply was received from the School Authorities, as well as the Opposite Parties. Complainant No.2, made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005,  to the CBSE, New Delhi, which was duly replied to vide letter dated 4.7.2011, Annexure C-3. It was stated that complainant No.1, was compelled to leave the course as Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, was not affiliated, with the CBSE, New Delhi. Complainant No.2, also approached the School Authorities, as well as the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount paid towards the fees and other charges, vide letters dated 1.8.2011, 02.08.2011, 23.8.2011 and 19.9.2011, as well as through e-mails. Complainant No.2, also made a request to the Opposite Parties, to allow complainant No.1, to participate in All India Test Series, but all in vain. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to return the post dated cheque no.24528 dated 02.03.2012, amounting to Rs.23,935/-, issued to the Opposite Parties, from the account of mother of complainant no.1; to refund the amount of fees, alongwith interest @12% P.A.; to pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and to pay litigation costs, to the tune of Rs.,10,000/-.

3.               The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary Party, in as much as, Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, was not arrayed, as a Party to the complaint, in the absence of which, the controversy could not be decided completely and effectively. It was admitted that complainant no.1, took admission, in Pinnacle 2 years Integrated Classroom Programme, in the Institute of the Opposite Parties. It was stated that arrangements had been made by the Opposite Parties, in Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, for the purpose of providing space for the Institute, for teaching the students. It was further stated that complainant no.2, received the wrong information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005,  dated 4.7.2011, from the Public Information Officer, CBSE, New Delhi, as it did not commensurate, with the final order of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 25.5.2011. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the Enrolment Form, complainant no.1, was not entitled to the refund of fees. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt, complainant no.1, took admission, in Pinnacle 2 years Integrated Classroom Programme, in the Institute of Opposite Party No.1, yet, he left the same, of his own accord. He further submitted that the appellants had made arrangement with Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, for the purpose of providing space, for the Institute, for teaching the students. He further submitted that, except the provision of space, by Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, the Opposite Parties, had no concern, with the said School. He further submitted that even the information, which was received by complainant No.2, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Public Information Officer, CBSE, New Delhi, that the said School was not affiliated, with the CBSE, New Delhi, was incomplete. He further submitted that, at the most, complainant no.1, was entitled to the refund of half of the fees, for the second year, and, not for the remaining period, as directed by the District Forum, in the order impugned. He further submitted that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.

9.               On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/complainants, however, submitted that since Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, which had provided space, to the Opposite Parties, for teaching the students, who took admission in the course, aforesaid, run by them, was not affiliated with the CBSE, New Delhi, complainant no.1, had no other alternative, than to leave the course midway. He further submitted that since complainant no.1 was not taught, after he left the course of the Opposite Parties, he was entitled to the fees, for the said period. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in holding so. He further submitted that since Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, refunded the fees, paid to it, by complainant no.1, it was not necessary to array it, as a party to the complaint. He further submitted that, thus, there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, and they also indulged into unfair trade practice, by not refunding the fees, for the remaining period. .

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, complainant no.1, took admission, in Pinnacle 2 years Integrated Classroom Programme, in the Institute of Opposite Party No.1, and paid a total fees, to the tune of Rs.70,058/-, for the said course, vide Annexure C-1, Enrollment Report Cum Receipt-Course Fee. Complainant No.1, left the course, midway, on the ground, that Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, was not affiliated with the CBSE, New Delhi. It was not that complainant no.1, had taken admission, in any class/course, in Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh. Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, had only provided space, to the Opposite Parties, for teaching the students, by them (Opposite Parties), for the course, in which they had taken admission. Under these circumstances, the grouse of complainant no.1, to the effect, that he left the course mid-way, on account of the reason, that Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, was not affiliated with the CBSE, New Delhi, could not be said to be justified. However, one thing is very much clear, that the Opposite Parties could not charge fees, for the whole course, at the inception of the same. The question pertaining to the advance payment of fees, and its consequences, was duly considered by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka = (2003) 6 SCC 696, wherein, it was held as under:-

“It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.”

11.            The principle of law, laid down, in Islamic Academy of Education`s case (supra), being binding on all the Courts, as also the Tribunals, in the Country, would supersede the bilateral agreement, between the parties, if the terms and conditions thereof, ran contrary to the same. From the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, it is evident, that the Opposite Parties could not charge the fees, for 2 years, in advance, from complainant no.1, at the time of his admission. At the most, they could charge fees, for one semester/year, from complainant no.1. Since the Opposite Parties, were running the course, there was no semester or trimester system, being followed by them. At the most, the Opposite Parties, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, could charge fees, from complainant no.1, for a period of one year.  By charging the fees for 2 years, at the time of admission of complainant no.1, the Opposite Parties, indulged into unfair trade practice.

12.            The next question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, complainant no.1 was entitled to the refund of fees, if so, for which period. Admittedly, complainant no.1 had started attending the classes in the month of April, 2011. He left the course in the second week of July, 2011. As held above, affiliation of Shivalik Public School, Sector 41, Chandigarh, with the CBSE, New Delhi, or not, was hardly of any consequence, as complainant no.1, did not take admission therein, but in the course of the Opposite Parties. Whether complainant no.1, had left the course, of his own accord, or otherwise, was hardly of any consequence. In view of the principle of law, laid down in Islamic Academy of Education`s case (supra), FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rathi, Revision Petition No.3365 of 2006, decided on 14.11.2011 and FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. B.B. Popli, Revision Petition No.1805 of 2007, decided on 14.11.2011, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, he was entitled to the refund of fees, for the period of one year (excluding service tax), i.e. for the second year. The District Forum was wrong, in directing the Opposite Parties, for the refund of fees, for the remaining period, for which complainant no.1, did not avail of the services of the Opposite Parties, by not attending the course, in question. The order of the District Forum, thus, deserves to be modified, to this extent.

13.            The Opposite Parties were required to refund the fees, of one year, to complainant no.1, since he left the course. They, however, did not bother to refund the fees of one year, to complainant no.1, though, a number of requests, in writing, in that regard, were made, as a result whereof, the complainants were dragged into litigation, by way of filing a Consumer Complaint. A lot of mental agony and physical harassment was, thus, caused to the complainants, on account of the said acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Parties. For such a mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainants, at the hands of the Opposite Parties, by not refunding the fees, of one year, despite various requests, in writing, and unnecessarily dragging them into litigation, the District Forum, was right, in awarding compensation, in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

14.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

15.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with the modification, in the following manner:-

                              i.   The appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to refund the fees (excluding service tax) for one year i.e.  for the second year, to complainant no.1/respondent no.1, through his father/guardian i.e. complainant no.2/ respondent no.2, and not for the remaining period, as awarded by the District Forum.

                            ii.   The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, shall remain intact.

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

17.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

03.12.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg