Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/217/2018

Ashok Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch In-Charge, FIITJEE Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Hemant Goyal

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	217 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	13.04.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	27.08.2018

 

 

 

 

Ashok Gupta s/o Hans Raj Gupta, r/o H.No.715-B, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh.

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

The Branch Incharge, FIITJEE  Limited, SCO No.321-322, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

………. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Hemant Goyal, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Vivek Lamba, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, in brief is that, his son took admission in FIITJEE Coaching Centre/OP for JEE coaching under Course No.1151-Two Years Classroom Programme – JEE(Advance)-Regular Week Contact Classes (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the OP Institute received complete fee of two years on 24.1.2016 from the complainant amounting to Rs.1,33,129/- through cheques, which have been duly encashed by the Opposite Party.

         It is averred that after having attended the classes for initial two months only, the son of the complainant being not satisfied with the way of teaching methodology of the Institute, complained to the complainant that he was not comfortable with the pattern and standard of classroom instructions. The main issues explained by the student was that the Teachers of Opposite Party at Chandigarh were not so competent and well equipped to complete the syllabus upto that level.  It is submitted that the in Oct., 2016, due to bad health, the son of the complainant could not sit in one phase test of Opposite Party in Nov., 2016, resultantly, his batch was shuffled from higher one to lower one, due to which Jatin Gupta, son of the complainant, could not adjust further and subjected to humiliating by the Class Teachers. As a result, the son of the complainant was taken to Consultants Clinical Psychologist Dr.Dwarka Pershad (Ann.C-3), who explained that the teachers of Institute have shattered the confidence of the student by undue pressure.  It is submitted that ultimately, the son of the complainant decided not to attend the course/tuition classes for Class-XII any further and the same was duly intimated to the Opposite Party. It is also submitted that the complainant has written to the Opposite Party in this regard well before starting of new session intimating that the student has not completed his full course satisfactorily for want of deficiency in standard and pattern of class instruction offered by the Opposite Party. Ultimately, the complainant had to get his son admitted in another institute with individual teachers and had to pay fee of Rs.1,15,180/-. It is stated that the complainant visited the Opposite Party to seek refund of the money paid in advance, but the Opposite Party flatly refused to pay back any amount. It is also stated that despite notice, no representative of the Opposite Party showed even a courtesy to contact the student during the span of last 10 months to know about his health and studies with an ulterior motive to usurp full fee paid for the entire course. Alleging the said act & conduct of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.1,33,129/- along with compensatory cost and litigation expenses. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the ward of the complainant was enrolled for Two Year CRP-JEE (Advanced) Regular Week Contact Classes (Ann.OP/3 colly.).  It is stated that the fee of Rs.1,33,129/- paid by the complainant incudes service tax, cost of books and study material.  It is also stated that as per the declaration and consent accorded thereto by the complainant, he is not entitled for any refund.  It is denied that the student was not satisfied with the study programme and standard of study of the Opposite Party. It is denied that the complainant reported any such matter to the Opposite Party or visited the Opposite Party in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant and his son were made aware of all the terms & conditions at the time of taking admission and after going through all the conditions, they accepted and signed the same along with declaration. It is also denied that the complainant is entitled for any refund.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions made in the complaint.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The son of the complainant applied for enrollment for Two Years Classroom Programme for JEE with Opposite Party. At the time of enrolment on 24.1.2016 on the demand of Opposite Party, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.1,33,129/- by way of cheques, as per details given under:-

 

S.No.	Dated	Dd/Chq No.	Bank	Amount
1.	23.1.2016	881582	State Bank of India	6900/-
2.	23.1.2016	881586	State Bank of India	5611/-
3.	23.1.2016	881581	State Bank of India	59540/-
4.	25.2.2016	881590	State Bank of India	22757/-
5.	26.2.2016	881587	State Bank of India	4695/-
6.	10.12.2016	881585	State Bank of India	4600
7.	10.12.2016	881584	State Bank of India	27537
8	11.12.2016	881588	State Bank of Mauritius Ltd.	1489/-
			Total	Rs.1,33,129/-

 

7]       The complainant paid the above said amount in advance to OPs on 24.1.2016 for Two Years Coaching Classes at FIITJEE Limited, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.  The enrollment contract was, however, executed on 30.1.2016 (Ann.C-2).

 

8]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, has inter alia observed as follows: -

“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 nationalized 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”.

 

9]       The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Fiit Jee Ltd. Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath, 2012(1) CPJ 194 while considering the revision petition on identical facts, as involved in the present complaint, has categorically held that Fiit Jee Ltd. could not charge full advance fee for Two years and held the complainant entitled for receipt of refund of fee taken in advance from him by FIIT JEE.  It is further held by the Hon’ble National Commission that such cases are consumer disputes within the meaning under the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2009 III CPJ (NC) and also in Jai Preet Singh Kaushal Vs. FIIT JEE Ltd., decided on 14.11.2017 – 2018(I) CON LT 536 relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, has held the charging of fee full in advance for two years course as illegal.

 

10]      The Opposite Party was aware of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well Hon’ble National Commission, however, it has blatantly violated the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court and charged Fee for Two Years in advance from the complainant.  The Opposite Party is not an accredited academic institution affiliated with any Board or University and is merely a Coaching Centre for providing Coaching to the students who aspire for admission to engineering/technical institutions. The Opposite Party undoubtly is in dominating position and as such maneuvered to get the signature of parents of students on pre-settled printed enrollment undertaking. The parents under duress sign such undertaking with an anxiety to get his pupil admitted for best coaching to enable him/her for better performance in the competitions for admission to high ranked engineering/technical institutions/ universities.  This is nothing but an emotional exploitation and cannot be acquiesced. If any child, after joining the coaching institute, failed to cope up with the coaching schedule for the reasons whatsoever, he cannot be penalized by way of forfeiture of his money, which has been deposited by his parents with such coaching centre.  The Coaching Centres are entitled legally to charge fee only for the services, which they actually provide to the student and not more than that.

 

11]      Jatin Gupta, son of the complainant, had joined the coaching classes of the Opposite Party only for two months i.e. upto October, 2016.  The Opposite Party has not produced any record with regard to attendance to rebut the above fact regarding study of Jatin Gupta for more than two months.  The Opposite Party has also failed to produce any evidence/record regarding supply of any study material or books etc. to the son of the complainant.  The Opposite Party has also not produced any record or document to establish the payment of any tax to the government out of the fee deposited by the complainant. 

 

12]      In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission, referred above, the complainant is entitled to get refund of fee paid by him after deducting two months fee i.e.Rs.11094/- on pro-rata basis. 

 

13]      The Opposite Party by charging Fee for Two Years in advance from the complainant for coaching to his son, has indulged into unfair trade practice.  The refusal by the OP to refund the amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  The son of the complainant took coaching only for two months and as such, the Opposite Party has no legal, valid right to refuse to pay back the amount for the period for which he (son of the complainant) never attended the classes, not got any service from FIIT JEE/OP. 

 

14]      Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case and the settled law, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the balance fee amount of Rs.1,22,035/- (Rs.1,33,129-11094/-) to the complainant with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 13.4.2018.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him due to non-refund of due amount.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay Rs.1000/-for each per day on account of delay on their part in compliance of the order.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

27^th August, 2018                                                           sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER