NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
FIITJEE Ltd. – Complainant
versus
Shlok Agarwal alias
Shlok Vijay Agarwal – Opp. Parties
Revision Petition No.347 of 2025
[Against the Order dated 23rd October 2024 in Appeal SC / 36 / A / 429/2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Telangana]
Decided on 18.9.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Education – Unfair Trade Practices – Refusal to refund fee – Findings of State Commission and District Forum that petitioners were not justified in charging full course fees for two years and thereafter refused to refund fees when respondent discontinued course even after 10 days from its beginnings of classes – Very foundation of enrolment form speaks of unfairness and unfair trade practice – There was deficiency of service on part of petitioner – State Commission rightly held that petitioners can withhold only fees of first semester and are liable to refund balance amount along with 6% interest, besides Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - District Forum held that forfeiture of entire fees for withdrawal within a fortnight is unjustified and constitutes unjust enrichment; directed refund of balance with interest and compensation/costs (!) (!) - State Commission held that only first-semester fee may be withheld; refund of balance with interest and additional compensation/costs; difference between educational institutions and coaching centers recognized (!) (!) - Revision petition upheld the State Commission’s order, confirming limited refund and payment of compensation/costs; dismissal of petition for lack of merit with costs and potential interest for non-compliance (!) - Enrolment form/declarations indicating no-refund terms were deemed unfair trade practice and unconscionable, constituting deficiency of service (!) (!) - Arbitration clause does not oust jurisdiction of consumer courts in refund disputes (!) (!)
ORDER
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member—Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/the complainant/ Shlok Agarwal @ Shlok Vijay Agarwal (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondent’) through mother being enticed by the attractive promises made by the opposite parties/the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners’) had appeared in the exam conducted named as ‘FIIT JEE Talent Reward Exam (FTRE)’. The respondent after being allured by the attractive offer of 35% waiver of tuition fee on taking admission in the institute of petitioners for pursuing admission in 1st year of Intermediate with the subjects Mathematics, Physics & Chemistry (M.P.C.) from the Intermediate Board of State of Telangana. The respondent paid upfront fees for the entire course of two years i.e. for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 much prior to the commencement of course with effect from 01.06.2017. The petitioners on 25.12.2016 conducted an exam for admission in their college only to extract money from the aspirant student and as adopted unfair trade practices by charging exorbitant fees. The petitioners demanded Rs.4,26,826/- from the respondent under different heads. The respondent paid the entire fees on being offered concession by the petitioners, if paid before 18.01.2017 and accordingly paid Rs.3,47,166/- which was acknowledged on 07.02.2017 in the form of enrolment report.
1.1 The respondent joined the classes on 01.06.2017 in the campus of the petitioner No. 1 for the academic years 2017-2018. However the respondent was harassed by the teachers including physic teacher and he was humiliated in the presence of entire class. The timing of the classes was cumbersome and tedious as classes were scheduled from 6.50 am to 5.15 pm from Tuesday to Saturday and from 6.50 am to 4.00 pm on Monday with commencement of compulsory exams on every Saturday. The students were divided into 13 batches on the basis of such examination. The parents of the respondent approached the management of the petitioner no 1 for improvement of the situation otherwise they would withdraw the respondent from the course. The respondent discontinued the classes from 11.06.2017 and demanded the refund of fees but the petitioners refused to refund the fees. The respondent and his parents repeatedly requested and approached the principal of the petitioner No. 1 who assured them to refund the fees after proportionate deduction but subsequently avoided to refund on one pretext or the other and finally vide letter dated 15.06.2017 refused to refund the fees. The respondent being aggrieved filed the consumer complaint bearing No. C.C. No. 85/2018 titled as Master Shlok Agarwal @ Sholk Vijay Agarwal V M/s Fitjee Limited & others under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) and prayed as under:—
(a) To refund a sum of Rs.3,47,166/- being the principal amount paid by the Complainant along with the interest @ 18% from the date of payment to the date of its realization either jointly or severally.
(b) To oat Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental trauma and physical harassment caused to the Complainant as stated in the complaint.
(c) To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards punitive damages as the Opps8ite Parties have not refunded the fees in spite of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission.
(d) To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint and
(e) To pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioners filed the written version before the District Forum wherein stated that the complaint is neither maintainable nor sustainable on facts and law as it does not disclose any consumer dispute. The selection of students seeking admission in FIIT JEE institute is based on marks obta
Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka
Forfeiture of entire fees paid by student on withdrawal from course within a fortnight of joining is unjustified but amounts to unjust enrichment.
Educational institutions do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for post-admission disputes.
The Court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental activities are not subject to Consumer Protection Act provisions, affirming the need for liberalism in condoning delays for appeals.
(1) Educational matters – Educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.(2) Education institutions – Educational institutions and the services they provide are n....
When OP could not provide hygienic food and water, which compelled complainant student to discontinue course, loss to complainant’s career cannot be compared with financial loss of OP.
Education services offered by private institutes do not fall under consumer protections, as the evaluation process and resulting grievances show no deficiency in services rendered.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.