Back
2008(1) CPR 195
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
K.C. Gupta, President; Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor(Retd.), Member
Jetking Info-training Limited. —Appellant
versus
Sh. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No. 866 of 2007
Decided on 19.12.2007
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Retaining of deposited amount without rendering any service amounts to unfair trade practice.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 2(1)(r) —Unfair trade practice—Coaching institute—Non-refund of fee—Propriety—Complainant took admission in OP No. 1 Institute—He deposited Rs. 5,500 towards fee but could not join the course due to some domestic circumstances—His request for refund of fee rejected by OP No. 1—Held, fees are paid for service to be rendered by imparting education by the educational institute —If there was no rendering of service, then there was no question of retaining the fee—Appeal allowed.
Facts of the Case:
Respondent No.1/complainant, Sandeep Kumar had taken admission in the Institute on 28.11.2005 and had deposited Rs. 5,500 towards fee on the same day. However, due to unavoidable domestic circumstances, he could not join the course which was to start from January 2006 and moved an application for refund of fee on 10.1.2006 which was not refunded.
Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint was filed.
Appellant and respondent No. 2 contested the complaint and filed joint reply. Admitting facts asserted by complainant, OPs stated that according to rules, complainant was not entitled to refund of fee as he himself had voluntarily withdrawn from the Institution.
After hearing counsel for the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh accepted the complaint with costs vide order dated 14.11.2007
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No. 2 has filed the present appeal.
Findings of the Commission:
The student who leaves the Institute without attending any class before start of classes and prays for refund, he should be allowed refund as no service had been rendered to him.
Result: Appeal allowed.
K.C. Gupta, President— This appeal has been directed by the opposite party No.2 against order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh(hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which complaint of respondent No.1(complainant) was accepted and the appellant as well as Director, Jetking Info-training limited-respondent No.2 in the appeal were directed to refund Rs.5,500 charged from the respondent No.1, within thirty days failing which they would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing complaint i.e. 16.11.2006 till actual payment.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Sandeep Kumar-respondent No.1 took admission in the appellant institute vide admission form No.46898 dated 26.11.2005 and deposited a fee of Rs.5,500 vide receipt No.098081 dated 28.11.2005. He was also issued an identity card/slip. However, due to domestic circumstances he could not attend the course starting from January, 2006 and therefore moved an application on 10.1.2006 to appellant as well as respondent No.2 to refund his fee but the same was not refunded.
3. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint was filed.
4. Appellant and respondent No.2 contested the complaint and filed joint reply. They admitted that respondent No.1 had taken admission and had deposited necessary fee and had further withdrawn from the course but stated that according to rules he was not entitled to refund of fee as he himself had voluntarily withdrawn from the institution. Therefore, they prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
5. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 14.11.2007 accepted the complaint with costs as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.2 has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard counsel for appellant Sh. Ashok Sharma and carefully gone through the file.
9. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1(complainant) Sandeep Kumar had taken admission in the institute of the appellant on 28.11.2005 and had deposited Rs.5,500 towards fee on the same day. However, due to unavoidable domestic circumstances he could not join the course which was to start from January, 2006 and moved an application for refund of fee on 10.1.2006 which has not been refunded so far.
10. The main contention of the appellant and respondent No.2 is that since respondent No.1 had voluntarily surrendered the seat, so, they were not liable to refund the fee as per rules. Reference has been made to clause 9 of annexure C4 in which it is stated that appellant and respondent No.2 could confiscate the total amount of fee of any candidate/ student who had not joined classes after seeking admission and paying the due fee and had demanded the refund. Certainly such clause is against public policy and smacks of unfair trade practice because the student who leaves the institute without attending any class before start of the classes and prays for refund, he should be allowed refund as no service had been rendered to him. It is settled law that fees are paid for service to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institution and if there was no rendering of service then there was no question of retaining the fee. This has been so observed by Hon’ble National Commission in Deputy Registrar(College) and Anr. v. Ruchika Jain1 It has been further observed by National Commission in Director PIE Education v. Dr. Daya Shanker Mishra2 that retaining of deposited amount without rendering any service amounted to unfair trade practice. Certainly instead of teaching and promoting ethical standards, appellant and respondent No.2 are trying to enrich themselves by adopting unethical practices.
11. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is d
