JUDGEMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Forum record are:

“Complainant's son Hamza got enrolled in FIITJEE Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) in a two year classroom programme for JEE (advance) weekend contact classes on 06.04.2013.

It is stated that Complainant paid the total amount for full two years i.e Rs.2,06,670/- vide post dated cheques. Complainant’s son upon attending the institute of OP realized that the tall promises made by OP at the time of admission were not being fulfilled by OP. Complainant's son was not getting proper attention in the classes, as assured. It is stated that the queries or doubts raised by complainant's son remained unattended.

The teaching staff of OP made one excuse or the other but the doubts of the student remained unsolved. It is stated that the teacher would sometime say that the problems will be solved when at least five or six students have the same problem or that problems will be cleared once the session comes in full swing. The said assurances kept dragging and wasted full four important months of the complainant's child.

PAGE 3 OF 9 It is stated that the complainant telephonically informed OP regarding the problems faced by his son and he even visited the office of OP on 04.08.2013 and 06.08.2013 but was of no use. It is stated that the complainant vide letter dated 13.08.2013 informed OP that his son would quit the institute as he was dissatisfied with the services provided by OP. But no satisfactory reply was given by OP till filing of the complaint.

Alleging deficiency in service of OP, Complainant approached this Commission with prayer to award sum of Rs.3,06,670/-

including the refund of total tuition fees and also award the cost of litigation.”

2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 14.09.2022, whereby it held as under:

“It is complainant's case that complainant's son attended the classes of OP for about four months and was not satisfied with the quality of teaching/training being imparted, particularly lack of personalized attention and not solving the queries or problems of the student. Therefore complainant's son had no option but to quit OP's institute.

OP has raised an objection stating that the complainant and his son had accorded their consent to the terms and conditions contained in the enrollment form without any coercion or undue influence therefore they are bound by those terms & conditions.

On perusal of the terms & conditions in the enrollment form it is noticed that certain clauses are arbitrary and unreasonable.

Clause 8 of the Enrollment form reads as under:

I undertake that if I leave the institute midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to transfer of my father/mother/legal guardians/ill health of myself or any other member of the family admission or my admission PAGE 4 OF 9 in any institute/course/engineering college etc. , or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct etc I or my parents/guardians... shall not be entitled for refund of fees.

Mere reading of the dlause above shows that it is unreasonable unconscionable or voidable is not enforceable. The terms like “fees once paid is not refundable ” is unconscionable as well as voidable, therefore not actionable. It is also noticed that there is no Exit clause in the agreement/enrolment form in case students finds the services of OP unsatisfactory and wishes to withdraw from the institute. Students may leave the course midstream, if he finds the service deficient or substandard and non yielding and to tell him that fees once paid is not refundable is uncalled for. Therefore, absence of the Exit clause makes agreement unconscionable as it is one