IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:28.03.2023 Date of Hearing:29.10.2025 Date of Decision:17.11.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.-129/2023 IN THE MATTER OF FITJEE LTD., 29-A, KALU SARAI, SARVPRIYA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110016.

(Through: Mr. Mukesh M. Goyal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. MANAS MEHRA, ACTING THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN GP. CAPT. MANOJ MEHRA, RESIDENT OF OLD WILLINGDON CAMP, INDIAN AIR FORCE, RACE COURSE, NEW DELHI-110003.

(Through: Mr. G.L.N. Murthy, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Sukhbir Sheoran, proxy counsel for Mr. Mukesh Mohan Goel, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. G.L.N. Murthy, counsel for the Respondent.

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

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

“…2. The complainant took admission in FIITJEE (OP) for a two year weekend class programme for JEE advance 2021, which was to commence from April, 2019. Complainant paid fees of Rs. 4,01,493/- on 29.10.2018 for the same. Receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure-C/2.

3. It is stated that the complainant attended two weekend classes and after attending the same, found the coaching to be unsatisfactory. Therefore he desired to discontinue the coaching and sent a withdrawal letter through his father on 21.05.2019. It was informed through the said letter that the complainant would be withdrawing from the aforesaid course w.e.f. 25.05.2019. Refund of the fee paid i.e Rs. 4,01,493/- was sought after proportion deduction for two weekend classes which the complainant had attended.

4. Complainant was surprised to receive reply dated 31.05.2019 from OP denying refund of the fees after relying upon the declaration made in the enrollment form.

5. It is next stated by the complainant that after sending the legal notice dated 25.06.2019, OP vide email dated 19.07.2019 informed the father of the complainant that payment of Rs. 24,780/-was credited to his bank account through NEFT without giving any details. Complainant’s father sent another letter dated 03.09.2019 seeking details as to why only part payment was refunded. Balance amount was sought to be refunded however OP neither responded nor refunded the balance amount to the complainant. Hence the instant compliant.

6. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice complainant prays for direction to OP to refund Rs.

4,01,493/- after making deduction of the proportionate amount of two weekend classes and further deduction of Rs. 24,780/- paid by OP to the complainant. Additionally, compensation of 2 lac is sought, for harassment and mental agony. It is further prayed that OP be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the monetary relief sought for and Rs. 22,000/-

towards the litigation cost.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 10.02.2023, whereby it held as under:

“12. The first objection raised by OP that complainant is not a consumer in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in case title as PT Koshi Vs L.N. Charitable Trust wherein it has been held that education is not a commodity, is not maintainable. Distinguishing the above law laid, a three judge bench of Hon’ble National Commission in Deepak Tyagi and others v/s Sh. Chatrapati Shivaji pronounced on 20.01.2020, in para 46 held:

“We are of the opinion that any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like coaching centres does fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.”

13. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case (supra) the institute of OP, does fall within the jurisdiction of this commission and complainant does fall within the definition of consumer.

14. The next objection raised by OP is that the Consumer Commission cannot go behind the terms of the contract. As complainant and his son had