Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/450

FIITJEE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHARDA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                                     Date of Arguments: 09.02.2017

                                                             Date of decision    :  15.02.2017                   

First Appeal No. 450/2011

 

In the matter of:

M/s FIITJEE LIMITED

Vashisht House

29A. Kalu Sarai

Near Sarvpriya Vihar                                                                                   ………Appellant   

 

                                                            Vs.

Sharda Gupta

W/o Late Ashok Kumar Gupta

R/o 245/16, Pratap Nagar

Gurgaon, Haryana.                                                                                      …….Respondent

  CORAM

                                                                                              

SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER      

1.     ^{Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the}   

^{Judgement?  Yes}

^{2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

               

                                                               JUDGEMENT

Shri O.P.GUPTA

            The present appeal assails order dated 24.06.11 passed by District Consumer Forum -2  in complaint case No. 88 of 2008. The grievance of the appellant is that without taking into consideration terms and conditions of declaration signed by the respondent, District Forum directed it to refund Rs. 67,416/- with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment including litigation charges.  The respondent was enrolled vide enrolment No. CPASD0780271. The appellant does not fill up  vacancy created against any student who left the course midway. The respondent’s son was the only student who left the course midway in the entire batch.  The respondent had given declaration that in case he left the institute before completing full course for any reason whatso- ever, he shall have no claim for refund of case.  The respondent is bound by the agreement as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Col. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division  AIR 1996 SC2508.

2.         The appellant has relied upon decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2054 of 2013 titled as Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni decided on 08.10.2015.  In that case reference is made to earlier decision of National Commission in RP No. 3365/2006 titled as Fiitjee  Ltd. Vs. Dr.(Ms. Minathi Rath).  In Mayank Tripathi vs. Fiitjee it was held that subject of education did not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

3.         In view of the above decision the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand.  The revision is accepted and impugned order is set aside.  The complaint is dismissed.

4.         Copy of the order will be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

                                                                                                                                

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

MEMBER                                                                                                               (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)