IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 05.07.2023 Date of hearing: 03.04.2025 Date of Decision: 17.04.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. – 305/2023 IN THE MATTER OF FIIT JEE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF FIIT JEE LTD., 29-A, KALU SARAI, SARVPRIYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Mr. Raaj Malhotra, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. SREERAJ S., S/O MR. C. SREEKUMAR, 2. MR. C. SREEKUMAR, BOTH: R/O B-504, P.O. IFFCO TOWNSHIP, BAREILLY-243403, UTTAR PRADESH.

(Through: Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Abhishek Kathuria and Mr. Raaj Malhotra, counsel for the Appellant.

Ms. Sreeja Pal, proxy counsel for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

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

“Complainants have requested to pass an award directing M/s FIIT JES Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to refund an amount of Rs. 1,57,148/-which was deposited by complainant towards fee of the entire period of two years programme along with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization; (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-towards compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.; (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The complainant No.1 is minor and complainant No.2 is father and natural guardian of the complainant No. I so he is competent to sign, verify and file etc. the present, complainant on behalf of both the complainants.

The complainant. No.1 was enrolled on 15.03.2012 with OP in two years programme for IIT JEE known as regular week contact classes. Complainant NO. 2 was asked to remit an amount of Rs. 1,57,148/- The whole amount was got deposited despite the inability to pay the whole amount in one go by complainant No.2.

On 10.04.2012, the complainant No.2 informed the OP that due to some unavoidable reason, his son would not be able to attend classes from 13.04.2012 and may be allowed to join batch commencing from July 2012 The OP did not respond to his request when they contacted in June 2012. OP refused to accede to the request of complainants Complainant No 1 could not attend the classes, the April batch after two months since he was not allowed to attend the fresh batch, he had no other option but to quit the prog.

Under these circumstances, the complainant No 2 on

09.06.2012 made a written request to OP to refund his hard earned money He again reminded OP vide letter dated 19.06.2012 OP vide, letter dated 27.06.2012 referring its policy, refused to refund the amount of fee paid by the complainant. It is contended by compliant that the OP had filled in all seats of the batch commencing from 13.04.2012, thereby got unjust enrichment by refusing the refund to complainants. On the other hand OP was not at loss by filling the seat of complainant with another student. The complainant got the legal notice dated 27.07.2012 served on OP. It was argued by complainants that the conduct of OP constituted unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections. The OP alleged that complainants had failed to show any deficiency on the part of OP. The complainant No.1 voluntarily withdrew from the course. The OP further contended that the reason for leaving the prog was advanced as weather of Delhi did not suit the complainant No.1 and resultantly, fell ill. It was contended that the complainants had accorded their unconditional consent for non-refund of fees and are thus bound by them. A copy of Enrolment Form is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure OP-1. The complainant could not show non-performance of the terms and conditions of the contract on the part of the OP. The complainant agreed and accepted the Arbitration Clause forming par