This post is a case digest on consumer complaint against FIITJEE Ltd wherein the student dropped out of the course and seek entire refund from the institute. The student won the case before District Forum but Institute challenged it before State Consumer Commission where the order of Forum was upheld and the institute was asked to refund the entire amount taken from student. Interestingly during the pendency of appeal, Institute encashed the money which show their greed of money and not concern for the welfare of the student.
Also Read- Refund Fee From Aakash Institute Chandigarh
JUDGEMENT DIGEST ON FIIT JEE LTD. VS MS. SHINJINI TEWARI
- In this case, we will cover and give an overview of the case Fiit Jee Ltd. vs Ms. Shinjini Tewari and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around unfair trade practice, Compensation under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Also Read- “Student”: Whether A Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- FACTS OF THE CASE.
Court name: STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Petitioner
Ms. Shinjini Tewari W/o Sh. Rahul Tewari, R/o #914, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh.
Respondent
FIITJEE Ltd., 29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017, through its Authorised Signatory Jaswinder Kumar.
Also At: SCO No.321-322, 1st and 2nd Floors, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
Date of Institution: 30.06.2019
Date of Decision: 11.07.2019
Also Read- Aakash Institute told to Refund Fee by Consumer Court
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
8.10.2017: got admission in four year class program for JEE(advanced).
20.12.2018: soughed refund for two post-dated cheques.
Also Read- Chandigarh coaching centre directed to pay ₹70,000 to student
In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the respondent/complainant got admission in Four Years Classroom Program for JEE (Advanced)- Weekend Contact Classes (Admission only for IX & X) and after the end of 1st & 2nd year of said coaching progaramme, on 8.10.2017, he was upgraded and enrolled for further two years coaching programme i.e. for year 2018 & 2019 respectively. Unfortunately, he suffered severe back pain and was advised to avoid long sittings vide medical advice (Annexure C-3). On account of above medical problem, the son of the complainant could not continue with the course and as such, his father requested the appellant/opposite parties to refund the fee of Rs.1,48,950/- deposited in advance for two years i.e. for 2018 & 2019 which was inclusive of service tax. However, refund was refused by the appellant/opposite parties citing declaration and consent accorded thereto by the respondent/complainant and further the seat vacated by the son of the respondent/complainant remained vacant throughout the course duration.
Also Read- Refund fee to student, forum orders FIITJEE
Complainant that her son, namely, Vatsal Tewari took admission in coaching classes of Opposite Party No.2/FIITJEE, when he was in 9th standard, where he attended 1st & 2nd year coaching during 9th & 10th classes from April, 2016 to March, 2018. It was stated that new coaching classes, which the son of the complainant was to pursue during his 11th class, were to commence from Nov., 2017 only. It was further stated that the opposite parties collected the fee for 3rd & 4th years of coaching from the complainant in Oct., 2017 in advance through post-dated cheques for a total sum of Rs.1,83,850/-.
Also Read- FIITJEE asked to refund fees
It was further stated that the son of the complainant attended very few classes during Nov., 2017 only and thereafter, he could not continue due to medical reasons, as he developed severe back pain as a result whereof he was unable to sit for longer duration. It was further stated that when it became almost impossible for the son of the complainant to attend the coaching classes, the husband of the complainant moved a request to Opposite Party No.2 seeking withdrawal of his son from the course under compelling circumstances. A request to remit the amount of fee after making adjustments (Ann.C-4) was made. It was further stated that the opposite parties encashed all the post-dated cheques given by the complainant for a total sum of Rs.1,38,750/-. It was further stated that the opposite parties despite making request did not refund any amount, hence, complaint was filed before the Forum.
Also Read- CONSUMER COURTS CASES VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING in Lockdown
The opposite parties, in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the son of complainant enrolled himself for Four year Classroom Program for JEE (Advanced)-Weekend Contact Classes and after the end of first two years (Class IX & X), he was upgraded for further two years i.e. for 2018 & 2019. It was stated that fee of Rs.1,48,950/- for further two years i.e. for 2018 & 2019 was inclusive of service tax. It was further stated that as per the declaration and consent accorded thereto by the complainant, he is not entitled for any refund. It was further stated that the complainant and his son were made aware of all the terms & conditions at the time of taking admission and after going through all the conditions, they accepted and signed the same along with declaration. It was further stated that the complainant’s seat in said course remained vacant throughout the course duration, as such, the institution was entitled for the fee of Programe and not liable to refund any fee. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied.
Also Read- Education not a commodity: TS Consumer Forum on fee refund complaint
The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint as referred to above.
Also Read- Despite CBSE warnings, coaching centres tie up with schools illegally in Chandigarh
Counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions. Firstly, that the complainant is not entitled to any refund in terms of provisions of the enrolment form, which was duly signed by the complainant at the time of admission of her son and secondly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of ratio of various judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on the subject, reliance whereupon was also placed at the time of submitting arguments. In the grounds of appeal, a specific plea was also taken that the Forum arbitrarily gone to the extent of granting award to the tune of Rs.1,70,350/- to the respondent/complainant as against the amount claimed in the complaint i.e. Rs.1,38,750/-. It was argued that the complainant is not entitled for refund of fees. By raising above arguments, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
Also Read- FIITJEE to refund part of course fee to student
In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the respondent/complained got admission in Four Years Classroom Program for JEE (Advanced)- Weekend Contact Classes (Admission only for IX & X) and after the end of 1st & 2nd year of said coaching programme, on 8.10.2017, he was upgraded and enrolled for further two years coaching programme i.e. for year 2018 & 2019 respectively. Unfortunately, he suffered severe back pain and was advised to avoid long sittings vide medical advice (Annexure C-3). On account of above medical problem, the son of the complainant could not continue with the course and as such, his father requested the appellant/opposite parties to refund the fee of Rs.1,48,950/- deposited in advance for two years i.e. for 2018 & 2019 which was inclusive of service tax. However, refund was refused by the appellant/opposite parties citing declaration and consent accorded thereto by the complainant and further the seat vacated by the son of the respondent remained vacant throughout the course duration.
Also Read- Chandigarh: Coaching centre must refund fee if student opts ..
It may be stated here that issues qua non-refund of fee by the appellant/opposite parties – Institute on leaving the Course in between by a student; giving of consent and declaration, seat remained vacant due to leaving the course in between etc. have already been dealt with by this Commission in number of cases. Recently, this Commission in the case of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Lalit Garg & Anr., Appeal No.59 of 2019, decided on 11.04.2019 has dealt, in detail, with all the issues raised in this case qua non refund of fee, undertaking given by the student/his or her parents etc.
- 3. ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether forfeiture of the entire fee paid by the complainants for the entire period course opted and not refunding a single penny, on leaving the said course by the complainants after attending the classes for 8 days, 2 months or mid-session, amounted to unfair trade practice or not.
- Whether it is justified to allow refund of fees for the remaining part of the course or not.
Also Read- Get Refund from Coaching Institutes
- 4. FINDING OF COURT
It is one of the grounds in appeal that the respondent/complainant prayed for refund of Rs.1,38,750/- whereas the Forum has ordered refund of Rs.1,70,350/-. It may be stated here that besides refund of aforesaid amount of Rs.1,38,750/-, the complainant also sought direction to the appellant/opposite parties to return two post-dated cheques bearing Nos.000352 & 000353 dated 20.12.2018 for Rs.15,000/- & Rs.30,100/- respectively, totalling Rs.45,100/-. It is on record that during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent/complainant moved a petition before the Forum under Section 151 C.P.C wherein she categorically stated that the aforesaid two cheques in the sum of Rs.45,100/- were got encahsed by the appellant/opposite parties on 24.12.2018 despite request made to the appellant/opposite parties not to encash those post-dated cheques. Thus, in our considered opinion, the respondent/ complainant was entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.1,83,850/- minus Rs.1,000/- i.e. Rs.1,82,850/-. However, in this appeal, which is filed by the appellant/opposite parties, we cannot order modification of the impugned order to the extent indicated above.
No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite parties.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.448 of 2018 is upheld.
Also Read- Institutes Can’t Charge Advance Fee
- 5. CONCLUSION
From the above it could be concluded that the appellant further despite instructions not to present the post-dated cheques collected from respondent, presented the same and got them enchased, which exposed their greed for money with clear cut intention to shell out as much as money from the respondent. Money was much more important for the appellant/opposite parties than the health of the son of the respondent/complainant. The act of the appellant/opposite parties in not refunding the fee to a student who left the course after attending few classes on extreme medical grounds is atrocious. One can easily see the height of atrocities being committed by the appellant/ opposite parties. This has to be stopped somewhere. Future of students/children is to be protected at large and this will only become possible, when the coaching/educational institutions understand their responsibility and duty towards the students in true perspective.
Also Read- Institutes Cannot Charge Advanced Fee for a Year
In the other view the Forum rightly observed that the appellant were aware of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well Hon’ble National Commission, however, it blatantly violated the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court and charged Fee for Two Years in advance from the complainant. The Forum also righty observed that the appellant are not an accredited academic institution affiliated with any Board or University and are merely a Coaching Centre for providing Coaching to the students who aspire for admission to engineering/ technical institutions. Undoubtedly, the appellant/opposite party, a coaching centre is in a dominating position and as such, manoeuvred to get the signature of parents of students on pre-settled printed enrolment undertaking. It further observed that the parents under duress sign such undertaking with an anxiety to get his pupil admitted for best coaching to enable him/her for better performance in the competitions for admission to high ranked engineering/technical institutions/universities, which is nothing but an emotional exploitation and could not be acquiesced.
Also Read- “Student”: Whether a Consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
The Forum further went on to observe that if any child, after joining the coaching institute, failed to cope up with the coaching schedule for the reasons whatsoever, or if a student is not in a position to continue/attend coaching classes due to medical reasons, he/she cannot be penalised by way of forfeiture of his/her money, which is deposited by the parents with such coaching centres. In our opinion and as rightly held by the Forum, the Coaching Centres are entitled legally to charge fee only for the services, which they actually provide to the student and not more than that.
Also Read- Consumer Complaint Against FIITJEE Chandigarh
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Consumer Court lawyer in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi Mullanpur Baltana etc who have experience of taking up matters of educational institutes Like Fiitjee, Aaakash, Helix etc.
This post is written by Sneha. More on 99888-17966
