Allen Consumer Complaint Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

This post is a consumer complaint against allen institute for deficiency of services wherein the fee refund order of court below was upheld in the favour of student.

Let’s have the case now.

Allen Career Institute v. Anil Kumar Sharma

NAME OF THE COURT- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

DATE OF DECISION- 8^th April, 2019

NAME OF THE PARTIES-

Appellant-

Allen Career Institute through their Authorized Representative

Respondents-

Anil Kumar Sharma

Also Read- Consumer Complaint against Allen Institute Chandigarh

TIMELINE –

10^th April, 2018- The amount of Rs. 1,20,650 was paid by the Respondent- Complainant for the enrollment of the daughter in the one-year medical course.
11^th April, 2018- The Respondent-Complainant’s daughter started attending the classes,
30^th May, 2018- The Respondent- Complainant’s daughter stopped attending classes as she felt that the faculties were not up to her expectations.
12^th September, 2018- The Appellant-Opposite Party did not appear for the hearing despite the service of summons and the hearing was proceeded ex-parte.

Also Read- ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE CHANDIGARH PENALIZED FOR DEFICIENCY

BRIEF STATEMETN OF FACTS-

The Appellant in the present case had filed for this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The order that was passed by the District Redressal Forum was supposed to be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the same by the Appellant, and the Appellant was liable to pay an interest of about 12% per annum apart from the litigation costs to the respondents.

Also Read- Chandigarh: Coaching institute told to pay Rs 91,000 to student

In front of the District Redressal Forum it was the respondent-complainant that got her daughter admitted in the Appellant- Opposite Party Institute as she was a medical enthusiast. The daughter was enrolled into the course for one year and had paid an amount of Rs. 1,20,650. The daughter had attended the classes for a period of 50 days that included holidays, and during this period, she found that the faculty of the Appellant-Opposite Party did not meet up to her expectations. She therefore, requested the Appellant-Opposite party to refund back her fee after the non-refundable service tax was deducted for the unattended session of the course but this was not availed by the Appellant- Opposite Party. Hence, the Respondent-Complainant had filed the case before the forum.

Also Read- Allen institute told to refund 80,000 to student

APPELLANTS’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-

The learned counsel for the Appellant- Opposite Party argued that the District Redressal Forum has committed a grave error by having held that the services of their institute was not up to the mark, and the reason for the same was cited to be no extra sessions or a doubt-clearing session was held for clearing the doubts of the Respondent-Complainant’s daughter.

Also Read- If student withdraws, institute can’t refuse fee refund:

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent’s daughter had studied in the Institute for 50 days and if there was a deficiency in the teaching patterns of the Appellant Institute then what was the point in her continuing her education in the same institute for so long. The Appellant also contended that they were self-made and this story was just cooked up to sabotage and harass them. They submitted that the duration of the course was for a total of nine months till the November, 2018 and the month of December, 2018 was just reserved for revision classes. The appellant also contended that the respondent-complainants were not under the entitlement of receiving back of their fees as the refunding of fees is done only within specific period as that is mentioned in the admission form, and this form had been duly filled and was acknowledged by the complainant.

Moreover, it was argued by the Appellants that the respondents do not fall within the ambit of ‘Consumer’ as there are various decisions regarding the relation between the students and educational institutions that the educational institution in question was not providing any sort of service.

Also read- Refusal to refund fee costs coaching centre dear

Therefore, it was argued by the Appellants that the argument should be allowed and the impugned order must be set aside.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-

The Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Appellants had not appeared in the previous hearing and defended the allegations of that of the Respondent, therefore, the appellants have indirectly admitted to their deficiency and unfair trade practice.

Also Read- ALLEN Career Institute Customer Care

CONTROVERSY INVOLVED FOR ADJUDICATION-

Whether the amount of Rs. 88,203 be refunded to the Respondent.
Whether Rs. 15,000 be paid to the appellant due to the unfair trade practice and the harassment that was caused to her.
Whether Rs. 10,000 be paid to the appellant as part of the litigation expenses.

Also Read- Allen Career Institute & Another

Nikhil Saini (Minor) through his Guardian

Allen Career Institute & Another v. Nikhil Saini (Minor) through his Guardian

FINDINGS OF THE COURT-

After having gone through the facts and the circumstances of the case, it was held that educational institution in question was a statutory body and is a business establishment that imparted educational services to the students by imposing fees that is hefty.

The Court held that the Appellant had contended that the student had withdrawn in a voluntary manner and therefore there hadn’t been any deficiency of service as such. They contended that their institute has shown positive and excellent results. Hence, it was wrong to assume that their coaching was not up to the mark.

The court held that this statement was biased and one sided and was totally in favor of the petitioner and was against the principles of natural justice and equity. Therefore, the court held that unfair trade practices of taking the entire fees of the course and then not refunding any penny of the amount of the existing course by the student is perverse and hence needs to be put to a halt.