FIIT JEE LTD Vs. MINATHI RATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.P. Nos. 3365/2006 and 1805/2007 have been filed by FIIT JEE Ltd., R.P. No. 2660/2007 by Brilliant Tutorials, R.P. No. 3496/2006 by P.T. Education & Training Services Ltd. and R.P. No. 3497/ 2006 by Career Launcher India Ltd. against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission) in Appeal Nos. A-830/ 2006, 18/2007, 509/2007, 830/2006 and 830/ 2006 in which Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath, B.B. Popli Rahul Dass and others were Respondents.

(2.) Although, the points involved in these revision petitions are similar, there are however differences in the facts of each case. For example, in R.P. No. 3365/2006, the student took admission in the Petitioner's coaching course and paid an advance fee of two years and left the course after one year. In R.P. No. 1805/2007, the student attended only for two days and left the course reportedly on medical grounds and in R-P.No. 2660/2007, the student left the course after six months because he was finding it too strenuous to pursue the courses. However, since as mentioned earlier, the main points involved in these revision petitions being the same (i.e. payment of two years' fees in advance and a subsequent request by Respondents for refund of the fees for the unattended period of the course), we propose to dispose of these revision petitions by one single order by essentially taking the facts of R.P.No.3365/2006.

(3.) According to the respondent/ complainant, Dr. Minathi Rath in this case, got her daughter, Smita Pati (hereinafter referred to as the 'student'), enrolled in the two years regular classroom programme of the Petitioner for which a full advance fee of Rs. 61,020 was paid on 20.4.2004 for services of coaching to be completed in March, 2006. The student attended regular classes upto January, 2005 but found that she was not benefiting from the Petitioner's teaching pattern because of apathy and lack of communication between teachers and students and the generally poor environment and lack of proper infrastructural and classroom facilities. The Petitioner also did not respond to Respondent's queries/clarifications regarding the programme and, therefore, Respondent decided to withdraw her daughter from the Petitioner/Institute and requested that the advance for the unattended period i.e. from February, 2005 to March, 2006 amounting to Rs. 30,500 be refunded to her with interest. Petitioner, however, refused to return this amount, aggrieved by which Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner/ Institute be directed to refund to the Respondent, the advance fee paid for the unattended period from February, 2005 to March, 2006.