STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

FIITJEE Ltd., 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016 through its A.R. Sh. Jaswinder Kumar

ALSO AT

2^nd Floor, SCO 350-352, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Sh. Chirangi Lal Sawant S/o Sh. Shish Pal, H.No.3084, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBNER

Present:-    

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 11.03.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.154 of 2019 filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Chirangi Lal Sawant (respondent herein) has been allowed by the Ld. District Commission in the following manner:-

“12.     In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund the fee of the complainant, excluding the service tax, for the remaining course period during which the complainant did not avail the services of OPs as he did not attend the classes.

1. to refund the entire fee deposited by the complainant after deducting the proportionate fee from 16.04.2017 to 18.06.2017.
2. to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.
3. to pay ₹8,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty 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 Ld. District Commission was that his son took admission in “Two Year Classroom Program – PINNACLE” of the appellants-Institute under Enrolment No. 1110161790132.  The total fee was to be paid Rs.2,92,713/- for the coaching of two years, out of which the appellants received Rs.2,60,949/- through Cheques/demand draft from the respondent. The respondent’s son attended the classes from 16.04.2017 to 18.06.2017 and the timings of the coaching were 08.30 a.m. to 01.30 p.m. Subsequently, on account of his admission in CSIO in Electronic course, the timings of which were from 08.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., the respondent requested the appellants to refund the deposited amount for the remaining period but of no avail. Eventually, the respondent served a legal notice dated 22.02.2019 upon the appellants but the same did not fructify.

3.      On the other hand, the case of the appellants was that the complainant and his son had duly filled the Enrolment Form alongwith with all its annexures and after understanding all the terms and conditions of enrolment form duly signed the same. It was further pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of enrolment, the fees deposited shall not be refunded under any circumstances. It was further the stand of the appellants that they believed in the quality education and not quantity. It was further pleaded that the appellants are self-financed and self-managed institute and run from the fees collected from the students and they have to bear expenditures like lease rent of the premises, salary of faculty members and non-faculty staff, electricity, fixtures and other allied expenditures, preparation and printing of study materials etc. irrespective of number of students and batches at all the branches t