STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 173 of 2024 Date of Institution : 26.04.2024 Date of Decision : 31.12.2025 FIITJEE Ltd., 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016 through its A.R. Sh. Jaswinder Kumar ……Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Smt. Manju Dahiya W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Dahiya R/o Flat No.146, HIG-1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh …..Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:-

Sh. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the opposite party, namely, FIITJEE Ltd.

(appellant herein) against order dated 02.01.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.84 of 2021 filed by the complainant, namely, Smt. Manju Dahiya (respondent herein) has been partly allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-

“10. In view of the above discussion, present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed.

OPs are directed as the under :-

i) To refund amount of ₹2,41,242/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.

ii) to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.

iii) to pay ₹8,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2] The case of the respondent before the District Commission was that the minor son of the respondent - complainant intended to pursue a career in engineering and accordingly, joined the ICSE batch of opposite party No.2. He attended coaching classes for two years during Class 9th and 10th i.e. from April 2019 to March 2021. The fee for the first year (April 2019– March 2020) and second year (April 2020–March 2021) was duly remitted. At the time of admission, the appellant – opposite part obtained post- dated cheques towards the entire four-year fee amounting to ₹3,71,242/- (Annexures C-1 & C-2). The respondent’s son was studying in an ICSE- affiliated school and the appellants had assured that the appellant provides coaching specifically tailored for ICSE students. However, after the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, when classes shifted online, the appellant unilaterally removed the student from the ICSE group and placed him in another batch (ID CDFYW923A02) following the CBSE curriculum. During the Class X schedule, the respondent realized that the coaching being imparted was under the CBSE pattern instead of the assured ICSE pattern, causing academic hardship due to conflicting syllabi of two different Boards. Consequently, the respondent’s husband submitted a written request on 02.01.2021 (Annexure C-3) seeking discontinuation of the remaining two years of coaching (2021–23) and refund of the corresponding fee, as not a single class for that period had been attended. The fee for Class XI and XII (2021–23) amounted to ₹2,41,242/-, which had already been collected in 2019 (Annexure C-5). Cheques totaling ₹1,92,592/- were encashed by the appellant in September 2020 i.e. much before the commencement of Class XI coaching and the remaining cheques for ₹48,650/- were retained by the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant has illegally and arbitrarily withheld the respondent’s hard-earned money without any supporting rules or regulations.

3] On the other hand, the defence set up by the appellant – opposite party before the District Commission was that it was categorically and specifically made clear to