FIITJEE LIMITED Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 117 of 2012, vide which the appeal against order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Sameer Jain, son of the complainant/respondent Anil Kumar Jain took admission in the Gurgaon Study Centre of the petitioner, which is an institute for running coaching classes for students for various entrance examinations and it is Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The admission was taken in a Course namely CRP-2 year with Registration No. CTYSDSD2201060021, enrolment No. CTYGR0680052 (C-6) and paid a fee of Rs. 68,930/- vide Receipt No. SD05-06-4350 dated 14.02.2006. It has been stated that in the month of April, 2006, the petitioner/opposite party informed the son of the complainant to join its study centre in Delhi instead of Gurgaon. The son of the complainant attended the Delhi study centre for a few weeks till 15.5.2006 but he did not find proper environment of study and teaching facilities at Delhi Centre. Moreover, he had to waste lot of time and money for visiting Delhi from Gurgaon. Consequently, he withdrew from the admission in the institute at Delhi and sought refund of his fees. Thereafter, a complaint was made with the District Forum, Gurgaon, seeking directions to the petitioner / opposite party to refund the balance amount of fees with interest from the date of deposit after deducting reasonable charges for classes for one month. It was also requested that the opposite party should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, ordered to refund Rs. 56,442/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 14.02.2008. The opposite parties were directed to ensure compliance of the order within a period of thirty days, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the order till realization. An appeal against this was heard by the State Commission and it was ordered to be dismissed in limini as per impugned order.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that once the son of the complainant had started attending the classes at Delhi, there was no reason for him to stop attending the classes at that Centre. The petitioner had started fresh batch of trainees in April, 2006, and informed the son of the complainant to join the study centre at Delhi. The learned counsel invited our attention to the grounds of revision petition saying that there had been no deficiency of service on the party of the petitioner. The complainant's son had left the course voluntarily and for reasons not known to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had a policy of not inducting a new student into a batch in the middle of the course. Further, the petitioners were following a principle of 'No Refund Policy' and they did not fill the vacancy after the student, in question, left the classes. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Dr. Minathi Rath, 2012 1 CPJ 194 in support of his arguments.