Back
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
SHAM SUNDER, DEV RAJ, JJ.
Sajjan Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
FIIT JEE Limited – Respondent
First Appeal No. 261 of 2013
Decided On : 20-08-2013
The institute's declaration on non-refundable fees could not bind the appellant, and the institute was liable to refund the fees for the remaining period if the student left midway.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Refund of Fee - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant's son enrolled in a 4-year classroom program and paid fees for two sessions. The appellant sought a refund for the second session due to alleged unethical business practices of the institute. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the appellant's son attended classes for the first session and demanded a refund for the second session well in advance. The court held that the institute's declaration on non-refundable fees could not bind the appellant. [ISSUES] The issues revolved around the refund of fees for the second session and the validity of the institute's non-refundable fee declaration. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court relied on the principle that fees for a semester or year could be charged, and if a student leaves midway, the institute is liable to refund the fees for the remaining period. The court also emphasized that the institute's declaration could not override the law. [FINAL DECISION] The court partly allowed the complaint, directing the institute to refund the fee for the second session and pay litigation costs.}
JUDGMENT :
DEV RAJ, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.5.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the son of complainant, namely, Nimish Goel, took admission in Opposite Party-Institute on 22.2.2011 in 4 Year Classroom Programme (2011-12-2013) and (2013-14-2015) for FIITJEE Weekend Contact Classes with Enrol. No. 9062161150017. It was stated that an amount Rs. 26,500/- was paid as fee to the Opposite Party, in advance, for the Session 2011-12-2013. It was further stated that besides this, the complainant also gave the post-dated cheques of Aug., 2012 & Sept., 2012 for an amount of Rs. 52,831/-, as an advance fee, for the Sessions 2013-14-2015 which was to commence in April, 2013. It was further stated that the said post-dated cheques were realized on the due dates. It was further stated that the complainant came to know about the unethical business practice of the Opposite Party, during the session 2011-12-2013, as it advertised fascinating cash Awards/Medals through FTRE (Fiitjee Talent Reward Examination) every year under fictitious terms & conditions, which could not be fulfilled by anyone, to claim such award. It was further stated that the son of the complainant - Nimish had got 34th All India Rank in FTRE 2011 and 38th All India Rank in FTRE 2012 and, as such, became eligible for cash awards of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, but the same were denied. It was further stated that being demoralized with the act of the Opposite Party, the son of the complainant left the Opposite Party - Institute and demanded the refund of fee, paid for the Session 2013-14-2015 vide e-mal dated 27.11.2012 i.e. well in advance before the commencement of the session, which was to start from April, 2013. It was further stated that the final notice vide e-mail dated 23.1.2013 was also sent to the Opposite Party, to refund the fee, for second session. It was further stated that the complainant also visited the Opposite Party personally seeking refund, but the same was verbally refused by it. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), seeking directions to the Opposite Party, to refund Rs. 52,831/- being the fee for the Session 2013-14-2014; pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
3. Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that a sum of Rs. 22,860/- were deposited by the complainant through Demand Draft, which was cleared later on. It was admitted that the complainant also deposited Rs. 56,469/- in the form of Post Dated Cheques, which were also cleared. It was stated that the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 79,331/- as part payment of the fee of the course, whereas the actual fee of the course was around Rs. 1,75,000/- plus service tax etc. It was further stated that the complainant opted Fee Plan 3 with minimum fees in which he had to pay less amount, in comparison to other plans; and, therefore, the said plan was not having exit option. It was further stated that the son of the complainant deposited lesser amount of fee, in comparison to the actual fee, as he was granted scholarship on the basis of marks obtained in FTRE Exam (Ann. IV). It was further stated that the son of the complainant had already availed FTRE benefit in the year 2010, in furtherance whereof, he joined the Opposite Party,
