Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5492
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)
Meena Ramanathan, Member, K. Ranga Rao, Member, Seshubabu, Member
Fitjee Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M. Sridhar Brahma – Respondent
FA. No.10/2021 | CC. No.362/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rupendra Mahendra
For the Respondents: N. Srinivasa Rao
Enrollment fees paid to coaching centers are refundable if the student withdraws before the commencement of classes and the institution fails to prove actual loss (e.g., seat remaining vacant), regardless of non-refundable clauses intended for mid-course discontinuation.
Headnote:The matter involves an appeal under S. 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. A parent paid an enrollment fee for a coaching institute for his daughter but sought a refund shortly after due to job relocation, before the student attended any classes. The court found that the request for withdrawal was made well in advance of the academic year's commencement and the student had not attended a single class. The primary issue was whether the enrollment fee is refundable when the student never attended classes and the withdrawal request was made immediately. The court reasoned that since the student did not attend a single class and the institution failed to prove that the seat remained vacant, the "non-refundable" clause intended for students who discontinue in the middle of a course is inapplicable to this case. In the result the appeal is dismissed without costs and the order of the District Commission is confirmed in all respects.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. enrollment and subsequent withdrawal request due to job relocation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense against refund based on institutional terms and nature of education. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. district forum's order and grounds for appeal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. procedural status and evaluation of citations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. verification of payment and withdrawal request through documentary evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. inapplicability of non-refund clause for pre-session withdrawal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. confirmation of district commission's order. (Para 23 , 24) |
******
Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao- -Member - (Judicial).
1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Opposite party U/s. 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the order dt.11.12.2020 Passed in CC.No.362 of 2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad with a prayer to allow the appeal and to set aside the above order i.e. 11.12.2020 passed in CC.362 of 2019.
2. For the sake of convenience discussion, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
The Respondent Sri. M. Sridhar Brahma, was the complainant and the appellant Fiitjee Ltd, was the opposite party against whom complainant filed Consumer complaint 362/2019.
3.The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-
The complainant submits that the opposite party informed (Publicized ) in various Print and Electronic media that the FIITJEE Hyderabad ltd., had commenced its services in 2004 from Saifabad center. Having been attracted by the said advertisement of the opposite party, complainant decided to joint his daughter Shruti Brahma in the opposite party college for Intermediate Course. The complainant and his daughter approached the opposite party to enquiry about the course.
But at that time the Principal of the opposite party without listening and giving any information conducted examination to the daughter of the complainant on the same day by collecting Rs.100/- towards talent test. The opposite party declared on the same day that the doctor of the complainant is eligible for admission in their college and asked the complainant to deposit the fee of Rs.2,35,298/- for each year of the course. The complainant was not interested to join his daughter in the opposite party college as his Job may transfer from Hyderabad to some other place. He informed the same to the Principal of the opposite party college for which the principal of the opposite party college assured the complainant to refund back the entire amount in case of his transfer.
4. Basing on the said assurance the complainant paid enrollment fee of Rs.53,100/- and Rs.6,400/- by way of two separate Banker’s cheques drawn on 12.04.2018 drawn in the favour of FITTJEE fee collection account. The opposite party collected 3 HDFC’s post Dated cheque bearing No.000011, 000012 and 000013 worth of Rs.79,700/-,Rs.40,798/- and Rs.55,300/- respectively. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.59,500/- to the opposite party towards enrollment fee and got acknowledgement. The complainant came to know from reliable sources that his Job will be relocated i.e. transfer immediately after four days of the payment made to the opposite party for which the complainant approached with a request letter dt.16.04.2018 to the Senior General Manager of the opposite party and informed him the withdrawal of the enrollment of his daughter from the college and requested him to refund the money paid by him and to return his 3 Postdated cheques to him. But the opposite party postponed the issue for the best reasons known to them and did not respond to the request of the complainant properly. The said acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. As there was no other go the complainant filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission-II Hyderabad, for the reliefs mentioned therein.
5. The opposite party filed the written version de
