Karnataka

StateCommission

A/371/2021

FIITJEE Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Srinivas.M.R. - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh M.Goel

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K.B. SANGANNAVAR                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 371/2021

 

FIITJEE Ltd. 29-A, KaluSarai, Sarvpriya Vihar New Delhi 110016 Through it’s Authorised Representative Sri. RaviKumar Sarangi Also at: Seshadripuram, 113/114, 3rd Floor HTR Chambers, Opp. Hoysala Hotel SC Road, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 020   (By Sri. Mukesh M. Goyal) V/s	……Appellant
Srinivas M.R. R/o. Akshaya Nilaya 347, 1st  Floor, 9th Main Railway Layout, 1st Stage Bhavaninagar, Bangalore 560 056   (By Naveen Biddappa)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the OP against the order dated 25.02.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1807/2019 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2. It is the case of the complainant that his son Master Akshay Srinivas appeared for the Big Bang test conducted by OP No.1 and OP No.2 in the month of October 2018 for admission to OP’s institute and cleared the test.  After receiving assurance from the staff of OP No.2 that ICSE portions would be covered in syllabus, complainant got his son admitted to OP’s institution for four years programme.  The cost of the entire course was Rs.4,22,296/- and this has to be paid as per the fee schedule which was provided by OP.  It is contended by the complainant that during the time complainant’s son had attended the class in May, he was not comfortable with the teaching imparted by the new faculty as they lacked experience and were not able to impart knowledge aptly to the students and realized that the portions which was covered by the OP was not in sync with the portions that was listed in school.  It is alleged by the complainant that OP falsely advertised and convinced the parents to get their wards only in OP institution.  Complainant sought cancellation of admission and requested for refund of amount and also return of postdated cheques issued in this regard.  OP failed to do so.  Hence, after issuance of legal notice lodged the present complaint. 
3. Heard counsel for appellant.  Counsel for appellant / OP not availed opportunity of filing objection / version before the District Commission.
4. The District Commission awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
5. This appeal is filed by the institution.  Total amount for the 4 years course is Rs.4,22,300/-.  Complainant’s son joined institution of OP regarding coaching.  According to the experience of the complainant’s son this appellant / OP said to be not covering the syllabus.  Alleging there is deficiency in service in not covering portions, even after several reminders in not returning the amount, District Commission holding deficiency in service ordered to refund the amount.  No version is filed.  The general principle is that the parties cannot approach consumer commission regarding education aspects.  It appears complainant left the course on the ground of non-coverage of the syllabus by OP institution.  Hence, while allowing appeal in part, the impugned order is hereby modified by directing appellant / OP to pay Rs.1.00 lakh to the respondent/ complainant instead of Rs.1,60,000/- as ordered by the District Forum.  Remaining portion of the order remains unaltered.
6. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the District Commission to release amount in favour of complainant and balance amount to be paid by the appellant / OP within three months.

 

 

 

President

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Member

 

CV*