Complainant Vivek Gupta took admission in two years class room programme for IIT JEE 2009 and he also deposited a sum of Rs.76,099/- with FIITJEE Ltd, the opposite party (OP)/ petitioner. It is alleged that after starting the session the OP had changed the venue of the classes. The first venue of the class was Sri Ram School, Gurgaon and subsequently, it was changed to Blue Bells School. The new venue did not suit the complainant, therefore, he left the coaching. The OP refused to refund the remaining amount. Consequently, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and the State Commission dismissed the appeal. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the authority of this Commission reported as FIIT JEE Ltd., vs Dr Minathi Rath 1 (2012) CPJ 194 (NC), wherein number of authorities were referred. Paragraphs 14 and 18 are relevant, which read as under: 4. So far as the first issue is concerned, even though in a very narrow technical sense, for reasons pointed out by the Counsel for petitioner in his oral submissions, coaching institutions may not be conventional educational institutions but since they provide coaching and training to students of an educational nature to equip them for higher studies in specialised educational institutions, the same principles that apply to educational institutions would also apply to these institutions in respect of the fees charged by them including advance fees. In any case, respondents are consumers and the petitioners are the service providers. Petitioners are rendering service for consideration and fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment of the Supreme Court would, thus, override any bilateral agreement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the considered view that respectfully following the judgment of the Honle Supreme Court, the petitioner/ Institute could not have charged full advance fees for two years and could have charged prescribed fees for one semester/ year. In the instant cases, since petitioner/ institutes do not follow the semester system, they could only have charged advance fees for one year. In view of these facts, the respondents are entitled to get refund of the fees after deducting the non-refundable service tax for the unattended second year of the course. 18. To sum-up, the revision petitions are dismissed and the orders of the State Commission are upheld with the following modifications: (i) The petitioners/institutes are directed to refund the fees (excluding the service tax) for unutilised period, i.e., the second year to all the respondents with interest @ 6% per annum. Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs in each case; (ii) The State Commission obiter dictum as well as damages of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the petitioners/ institutes, is set aside 4. The counsel for the petitioner urges that under these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are not legal. 5. We find force in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner, in a measure. We have to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of slamic Academy of Education and Anothers vs State of Karnataka and Others (2003) 6 Supreme Court Case 697 as well as by this Commission in the case of FIIT Jee Ltd., vs Dr Minathi Rath (Supra). However, there is some factual difference. The counsel for the respondent/complainant explains that the semester system is not applicable in this case but the period of coaching was divided into six parts. Therefore, we are of view that the petitioner can deduct the amount of one part only not of six parts. 6. Therefore, we order the petitioner to refund the amount i.e., the amount of 1 year and eight months to the petitioner/complainant within three months otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% till realisation. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition stands modified. No costs.