Date of Filing:21-07-2017
Date of Order: 19-6-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 19th day of June, 2019
C.C.No.321 /2017
Between
(Aditya Jaya Raman S/o.Jaya Raman,
Aged 15 years, Rep. by his father)
K.Jaya Raman S/o.Late Krishna Murthy
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Private employee,
R/o.H.No.34-109/1, flat No.155,
Sainikpuri, Secunderabad ……Complainant
And
- The Director,
Fiitjee Limited,
Educational Institution,
Saifabad, Hyderabad
Pin No.500004
- M/s. Fitjee house, 29-A,
Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi – 110016
Rep. by Managing Director ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.S.Bal Raj
Counsel for the opposite Parties : M/s. Rupendra Mahendra
.
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that refusal to refund the amount of Rs.2,83,924/- towards fee for two years amounts to unfair trade practice hence direction to the opposite parties to refund the said amount with interest from the date of receiving of the amount and to award Rs.2,00,000//- for causing mental tension to the complainant and his son and further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss caused to the complainant’s son for the next academic year and cost of this complaint at Rs.25,000/-
- Complaint averments in brief are that his son was enrolled for FINNACLE for two years class room programme with opposite party as per the scholarship test conducted on16-10-2016. Basing on the marks secured in the test his son was given 50% concession. While giving admission to the complainant’s son the opposite party collected total fee payable for two years through cheque dated 10-11-2016 and delivered cash receipts as well as other receipts for the amount received by other cheques. Total amount collected by the opposite parties was Rs.2,83,924/- under different heads for two years course during the period of 2017 to 2019.
Prior to the taking admission the complainant’s son has seen several advertisements and propaganda with regard to the facilities available to the students in the opposite parties institution and education skills being provided in it. Having impressed by the same the complainant’s son applied for admission and gone through the test including scholarship test. He joined in the M.PC group for 1st year and attended the class only for seven (7) days and during course of it he experienced inconvenience. The college bus pick up from college bus stop point and directly going to college at 6.30 am and classes start from early morning 6.40am and closes at 5.30 P.M with lunch break. The lecturers were not teaching the students at the level but they were teaching directly IIT standard. They were not teaching subject wise whenever asked a question was raised in the class room insulting the students by the teachers in the presence of other students and not to ask silly questions and did not waste the time. The teachers are not co-operating with students in improving their skills. Teachers instead of facilitating the students of concepts high level standards too much of rush and mental tension without rest to reach the high targets. There was no option for students to raise any doubt and clarification of questions related to subjects and entire 11 hours are being spent in the institution on teaching and reasoning without a scope for raising doubts.
The complainant’s son was CBSC student and no bridge classes were conducted for CBSC students but straightly grilling the students without teaching basics. The complainant’s son secured 10/10 marks in main subject in CBSC board and he is being pushed to use security and depression due to IIT standard in target mode of teaching. The complainant’s son is obesity and he was harassed by the colleague and other students and on the complaint to the principle action was not taken. After closure of the classes in the evening hours students have to cross the road to reach the bus stop at Secretariat road but due to heavy traffic and it is very difficult to cross the road and there was no help from the management of the institution to the students in crossing the road or picking them from bus stop to the college.
As per the rules and regulations the strength of the students shall be limited to 40 only in each class room but each class room is being croweded and management is flouting the rules and regulations. There was no supply of the water in the institution during the class rooms and there is no convenience to read in class room. Students were made to sit in the class room with water in side and proper steps were not taken by the management to maintain the college atmosphere in the class rooms. When the complainant and his son spoke to Mr. Kunal academic head regarding grilling and rushing of syllabus they told that it was to meet the targets. The methodology adopted in the opposite party institute is different from one prescribed by Government of India. The institute is not running as per instructions of the Government and the institution is being run for money with a profit moto. The management forcibly collected fee total for two years at the time of admission itself. Having collected an amount of Rs.3,13,924/- for the complainant’s son minimum facilities were not provided in the institution. Because of all these circumstances complainant’s son stopped the studies and request was made with the opposite party institution to refund the entire amount collected and a representation was given to that effect for which a reply was given on 15-6-2017 in a negligent manner. The class of enrolment form are unreasonably prepared in violation of the rules and regulations of educational Act the opposite party institution refused to refund the amount on the ground that the same is not refundable hence the complainant constrained to file the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
- Common written version filed for both parties denying the material allegations in the complaint. The defence set out in the written version is that there was no force on any student to take admission and fee was paid for two years at a time. Fee was collected as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the enrolment form. The institution has not given any advertisement or propaganda about the education skills and it is the parent who after consulting the Institution had admitted the complainant. The complainant’s son appeared for the scholarship test on 16-10-2016 and was qualified hence was given 50% concession while admitting in the college. The institution is not having buses to pick up the students and transport to institution.
The teaching in the institution is concept based which helps the students to understand the basics which are important and whenever a problems were raised they will be solved by the teaches. Institution encourages the students in the class room to clarify and for raising questions and the staff of the institutions does not insult any students in the class room. Whenever a student raises doubts they are being clarified by the institution and the staff of the institution does not believe in insulting the students in the class room. When the student and the parents in the counseling used to seek clarification and doubts with regard to the class or for examination purpose and at no point of time institution received any complaint from any of the student. There is no truth in the allegation that institution is straight away grilling the student without understanding the basics. Though the students had secured 10/10 in the CBSC subjects he is being pushed to high standard to target mode of teaching is totally false.
The allegation that there is no water supply in the class room and the class rooms are not convenient to read during the class period is false. Institution has made arrangements by providing water coolers for convenience of students at each floor. In the month of June 2017 due to heavy rains there was leakage of water at some places and same was closed as such the allegation that students were made to sit in the class room with the water is false. The class are being conducted for six days and tests are conducted twice in a week and there is no overcrowding of the class rooms. The admission Department of the institution has been taking daily study hours or classes or doubt clearing sessions between 3.30 to 5.30P.M which is being routinely followed in the institution. At the time of admission itself it has been made clear that the various terms and conditions reflected in the enrollment form clearly and strictly followed and that the fees once paid cannot be refunded when the student withdraws from the institution voluntarily after attending the classes for some days.
Opposite party is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in imparting quality education to the students aspiring to get admission in various IITs of the country. It was started in the year 1992 and is supposed to be No.2 rank in the all over country. It has been the pioneer in the field of quality education in nationwide for shaping the careers of the students all over the country. It provides innovative methods coupled with hard labour, systematic and disciplined education continuously with trained and highly efficient faculty.
In view of undertaking given by the complainant’s son for admission they are bound by the terms and conditions of the enrollment form signed by them.
The selection of the students seeking admission into institution is based on marks obtained in the admission tests conducted for it. Only few students will qualify in the admission test conducted by the institution. Each student who wants to appear in the admission test is required to fill registration form. The concerned officials provided details of the programme and suggestions in clean and clear manner. The complainant after having secured admission discontinued the course hence not entitled for the refund of the fee. The complainant’s son was enrolled for two years integrated programme but failed to attend the classes, hence it cannot be said they have not utilized the services provided by the institution. On account of leaving institution by the complainant’s son on his own the seat left open and it could not be filled up with another student.
The opposite party is a self financed and self managed institute and runs with the fees collected from the students. Most of the expenditure is incurred in advance and also fixed nature. It has to bear expenditure like lease/ rent of the premises, salary of the Faculty members and non faculty staff, electricity and other allied expenditure, preparation and printing of study materials etc. The complainant failed to state non performance of any of the terms and conditions of the contract on part of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite party has performed their part of the contract and it is the complainant and his son who are at fault. The opposite party is running the course successfully and no student left the course on ground of deficiency of service. The Apex court as well as the National Commission had repeatedly held that education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service hence in the matter of admission, fees etc there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry the evidence affidavit of complainant’s father has got filed reiterating the material facts of the complaint and got exhibited six (6) documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of its General Manager namely Sri Vijay Waghray is got filed and through him four (4) documents are exhibited. Both sides have filed written arguments .
On a consideration of material placed on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could be able to establish deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant can maintain the present complaint before this Forum ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: One of the reasons assigned in filing the present complaint is that as per the norms in each class strength of the students should be 40 whereas in the opposite party institute class rooms are overcrowded with students. Except a pleading for it the complainant has not filed any material in support of it. The complainant ought to have filed a petition to summon the admission register’s from the institute of opposite party to find out the strength of students in each class room. The opposite party has categorically stated that each class room does not extend 50 students. In spite of specific pleading by the opposite party in the evidence affidavit of complainants father there is no denial of it. In the absence of any acceptable material in support of this allegation either the complaint averments or the evidence affidavit of complainant’s father cannot be taken as sacrosanct to believe the same.
The other allegation of the complainant is there was no scope for the student to raise any question for clarification of doubt in the subject and whenever a student tried to raise the doubt he was being insulted by the teachers in the presence of other students. It is pertinent to see that nowhere it is stated by the complainant that the complainant’s son raised any doubt in the class room on any subject. Similarly there is no mention of the name of the student who was insulted for rising a doubt in the class room. If this allegation is true the evidence affidavit of either the complainant’s son or other the student who raised the doubts should have been filed. Even according to the complaint averments the complainant’s son attended classes just for Seven (7) days which can be normally from the date of commencement of classes. So within seven (7) days how many students the complainant’s son observed in raising the doubts and how many students were insulted by the teachers is not mentioned.
The complainant having pleaded that the opposite party institute is not following the rules and regulations of the Education Act failed to mention specific rule or regulation which was flouted by the opposite party . So all the allegations are made in a vague manner to assign reasons for leaving the institute and nothing else. As could be seen from the results being declared admission in the I.I.T and other institutions all over the country the students who have taken the classes in the opposite party Educational institute are more in. As rightly stated by the complainant himself soon after declaration of the ranks of the students who wrote I.I.T JEE entrance examination leading newspapers have published that the students from the opposite party institute have secured major ranks. If there is an iota of truth in the allegation of the complainant that students are not allowed to raise doubts and basics are not taught by the teachers. The students from opposite party institution would not have secured the ranks every year. All these allegations are made by the complainant in order to show a reason for opting out from the opposite party institution after attending the classes just for seven (7) days . Accordingly the point is answered against the complainant
Point No.2: The major defense taken by the opposite parties is education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students hence consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service is not maintainable before Consumer Forum whereas the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that decisions given by the National Commission as well as State Commission are to the effect that consumer complaint is maintainable under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 against the Education institute and in support of it reliance is placed in the following authorities:
Bhupesh Khurana Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad 2001 (2) ALT 51. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that - College admission – respondents running a college where complainants got admission for BDS course- a clear cut impression was given in prospectus that college was affiliated with Magadh University and recognized by Dental council of India but it was not as such - misrepresentation on the part of respondents amounting to unfair trade practice well established – complainants held entitled to compensation. There is a clear distinction of the facts in this cited authority to the case on hand. As such the facts of the above said authority have no application to the case on hand.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance on number of authorities in support of the contention that the education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing service of any nature to the students. Few among them are under :
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs.Naveen Kumar Chowdary and Maharishi Dayanand University Vs.Surjith Kaur – 2010 (11) SCC page 159. The Apex Court in this case held that education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students therefore in the matter of admission fee etc there cannot be conclusion of deficiency of service . Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Acct, 1986.
In the case of P.T.Koshy and another Vs.Ellen Charitable Trust and others . The Hon’ble Supreme Court while following the judgment in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs.Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC held that education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students therefore in the matter of admission fee etc there cannot be a question of deficiency of service .
The Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.465/2012 in the case of Fiitjee Vs. Dayachand Prasad while placing reliance in the P.T.Koshy and another Vs.Ellen Charitable Trust and others held that education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students. Similarly in the case of FIIT JEE Vs. Simridhi Choudhry in F.A No.814/2008 The Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in the case of Brilliant Classes Vs.Shri Ashbel Sam in R.P.No.270 of 2006 decided on January 29, 2010. The other cases upon which learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance are APEEJAY Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs.Prashant Ashok (I 2009 CPJ 10 NC Bhojia Dental College & Hospital & others Vs. AMAN DEEP SINGH (II (2009) CPJ 226)
RAMDEOBABA ENGINEERING COLLEGE VS. SUSHANT YUVRAJ RODE & ANR, III (1994 CPJ 160 NC). The Hon’ble National Commission in the R.P.4476 of 2013 in Fiitjee Vs.Sajjan Kumar Gupta held that complainant is not entitled for the refund of the infrastructure cost fee and admission fee and 10% of the Tution fee from the student, if the student had left the course mid stream . In the light of this case law it is crystal clear that a consumer complaint under Section 12 of C.P.Act is not maintainable before this consumer Forum in respect educational Institutions. Because education is not a commodity and the education institutions are not providing any kind of service to the students. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3: In light of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
Point No.4: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 19th day of June , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy of Pinnacle two year integrated class room coaching program
Ex.A2- copy of enrolment report
Ex.A3- copy of enrolment acknowledgment sheet
Ex.A4-copy of letter dt.10-6-2017
Ex.A5-copy of reply letter dt.15-6-2017
Ex.A6- copy of postal receipt cover
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1 -copy of enrolment together with attachments
Ex.B2- Hall ticket –cum- test fee receipt
ExB3- letter of the complainant dt.10-6-2017
Ex.B4- letter of opposite parties dt.15-6-2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
