FIITJEE LTD Vs. PRAMOD PAREEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Master Pukhraj, son of the complainant/respondent, took admission in the coaching Institute of the petitioner on 30.07 2008, since he wanted to take coaching for admission to IIT. The case of the complainant is that since the child has joined the coaching after the course had already started extra classes were promised for him. The said extra classes, according to the complainant, were never given to his son. This is also the grievance of the complainant that the study material was not provided to the child and the number of students in each class was only 18 whereas at the time of admission he was told that there would be a 80 students in the class. Another grievance of the complainant is that the teachers were frequently changed. The complainant sought to withdraw from the Institute and asked for refund of the amount which he had deposited at the time of admission of his child. He was informed that as per the terms and conditions of the admission the fee charged from him was not refundable. Aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia maintained in its written version that not only the extra classes but also the requisite study material was duly provided to the son of the complainant. It was also stated in the written version that as per the terms and conditions signed at the time of admission no refund was payable once the classes had started.

(2.) The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed the petitioner is before this Commission.

(3.) The first question which arises is as to whether the petitioner gave extra classes to the son of the complainant and provided the requisite study material to him or not. As far as the study material is concerned the petitioner has placed on record a document purporting to be signed by the student while receiving the study material. The said document purports to be signed against the column meant for phase one of the course. The submission of the Ld. counsel for the complainant is that the purported signature of the son of the complainant on this document are forged and do not tally with his signatures at the time of taking admission in the Institute such as Enrollment Form. Admittedly no handwriting expert was produced by the complainant before the District Forum to prove that the purported signatures of his son on the above referred documents were not written by the same person who had signed the Enrollment Form as the student taking admission in the Institute. In the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinbelow, if the complainant was disputing the purported signatures of his son on the above-referred document he could have produced a handwriting expert. It is not necessary that a student will put his full signatures while receiving the study material. He may put only his short signatures/initials while receiving the study material while he may put his full signatures while signing the enrollment form. The important aspect in this regard is a letter written by the complainant seeking refund of the fee he had deposited for the admission of his child. This is not his case that in the said letter he had alleged any extra classes were not given and the study material was not provided to his child. In the ordinary course of human conduct if a father/guardian wants to withdraw his child from an Institute on account of his being dissatisfied with the services offered by the Institute, the least he would do is to give reasons for withdrawing the child while seeking refund from the Institute. This is more so when he knows that as per the terms and conditions signed by him at the time of admission of the child no refund is payable to him if the child withdraws after commencement of the coaching classes. This is complaint's own case that the refund was refused by the petitioner relying upon the aforesaid terms and conditions. Even thereafter the complainant did not write to the petitioner alleging that he was compelled to withdraw his child on account of the failure of the petitioner to give extra classes and provide the requisite study material. There is no evidence or even allegation of the complainant or the child having ever complained to the petitioner Institute in writing about not providing the extra classes and not supplying the study material before refund was sought by the complainant. In the ordinary course of human conduct if the extra classes as promised are not given or the study material is not supplied the father of the child would at least write to the Institute requesting for the extra classes and the study material instead of straightaway withdrawing the child from the Institute and seeking refund.