IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 22.08.2022 Date of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date of Decision: 22.11.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO.-141/2022 IN THE MATTER OF FIITJEE LTD., 29-A, KALU SARAI, SARVPRIYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 110016 THROUGH IT’S A.R.

SH. SHIV CHARAN …Appellant (Through: RG LAWZ, Advocates & Consultants)

VERSUS SMT. SANGEETA GOYAL W/o SH. SUNIL GOYAL, R/o B-50, SECTOR-14, NOIDA - 201301 ….Respondent (Through: Ms. Tanya Raizada, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT HON’BLE Ms. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE Mr. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Ms. Musarrat, Counsel for Appellant (Enrl. No. D-9452/2023, Email : officecofrqlaws@gmail.com, Mob No. 9810910312).

Ms. Tanya Raizada, Counsel for Respondent (Ph. No. 8376899834, email ID: tanyaraizada1994@gmail.com & Enrl.

No. D/5986/2017).

PER: MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

JUDGMENT

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

“1.Facts of the Case as pleaded by Complainant are:-

Complainant‟s daughter got enrolled in a 02 year programme with FIITJEE(OP-1) on 29.01.2008, while she was preparing for her Class X Board Exam.

2. It is stated that at the time of taking of admission OP charged fee for entire two years duration from the Complainant. Complainant made the entire payment through Demand Draft of Rs.14,889/- and gave three post dated cheques of Rs.11,000/-, Rs. 24,213/- and Rs.30,786/- all drawn on and payable to OP-1. It is next stated that OP-1 obtained the Declaration from the Complainant on an already printed form. The Complainant, like other parents, was required to sign the declarations. In such cases, the parents have no choice except to sign on the dotted lines and therefore, their signing such documents does not amount to any valid agreement.

3. It is further stated that the Complainant vide letter dated 30.06.2008 intimated OP that although her daughter was enrolled for a 02 year programme while she was still preparing for her Board examination, after the results were declared she decided to take commerce for her further studies. She wanted to pursue a career in finance or management. Since, the child had changed her stream, Complainant requested OP vide letter dated 30.06.2008, to refund the fees paid by her but to no avail.

4. The fee was not refunded but the Complainant was assured by OP that the matter would be looked into, if a letter was submitted from Delhi Public School, Noida (where the child was studying) stating that her daughter was now a student of commerce in their school. Accordingly, such a certificate from the school was furnished to OP along with a letter of Complainant‟s husband for refund dated 23.07.2008, however, no favourable response was received from OP.

5. Thus aggrieved, Complainant approached this Commission with prayer to direct OP to refund the amount of Rs.80,888/-paid by the Complainant with interest @10% per annum. Additionally, it is prayed that OP be directed to compensate the Complainant by paying Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and harassment along with cost of litigation

6. OP resisted the complaint raising preliminary objection that Complainant and her daughter agreed and accepted the Arbitration Clause forming part of the declaration attached to the enrollment form. Hence, the instant complaint is barred by the arbitration agreement and the matter shall be referred to an arbitrator.

7. Another objection raised by OP is that while seeking admission the Complainant and her daughter have understood and thereafter accorded their consent to the terms & conditions laid down in the Declaration, without any coercion or undue influence. Thus by signing those declarations, both of them have accorded their unconditional and free consent and are thus bound by them, as per law.

8. It is stated that Complainant‟s daughter voluntarily left the course midway and as per the policy of OP no new student was admitted in the batch in place of Complainant‟s daughter