NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2289/2013

FIITJEE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNITA MADAN - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. LUTHRA & LUTHRA LAW OFFICES

11 Oct 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2289 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 18/03/2013 in Appeal No. 571/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
WITH
IA/3815/2013
1. FIITJEE LIMITED
PUNJABI BAGH CENTRE, 31,32,33 CENTRAL MARKET, WEST PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI - 110028
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SUNITA MADAN
MOTHER OF PRAYANK MADAN, A-26- 2ND FLOOR, VIKAS PURI
NEW DELHI - 110018
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Manu Yadav, Advocate with
Ms. Astha, Advocate
For the Respondent :
In Person

Dated : 11 Oct 2013
ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

 

1.      Arguments heard. 

2.      Mr. Prayank Madan, son of the respondent Mrs. Sunita Madan was preparing for IIT for 2 years course.  He approached the petitioner, FIITJEE Limited, and deposited a sum of Rs.75,000 plus Rs.4,000/- with the petitioner.   Mr. Prayank Madan has also paid the amount of Rs.44,944/- through cheque bearing 480853,  which was subsequently stopped.  Mr. Prayank Madan studied for two days i.e. on 2nd and 3rd August, 2008.  Thereafter, he left the course and an application was moved by Mr. Prayank Madan asking the petitioner to return the said amount.  The petitioner refused to pay the said amount.  A complaint was filed with the District Forum.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs.75,000/-.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed.

3.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and complainant in person.  Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner towards the judgment  in the case of FIIT JEE Ltd. vs. Dr. Minathi Rath I (2012) CPJ 194 (NC) wherein it was held that in view of settled law, petitioners could not charge full advance fees for two years and charge prescribed fee for one year only.  The petitioner in that case was directed to get refund of advance fee after deducting non-refundable service tax for unattended second year of course.

4.      In view of this, we hereby order that the petitioner can keep the amount paid for first year only.  Rest of the amount be paid by the petitioner to the respondent which comes to Rs.25,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date it was deposited with the petitioner.  It is however, clear that the petitioner is still indulging in unlawful trade practices despite so many orders have been passed by this Commission.  They must return the money which they have charged illegally from other students.  Consequently we impose compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation charges in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to the respondent within 60 days otherwise it will carry interest @9% till its realization

5.      Accordingly, we allow the revision petition to that extent.

 

 

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.