FIIT JEE LTD. Vs. HARISH SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission in FA no. 591/2008, FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Harish Soni, vide which, while partly accepting the appeal, the order dated 05.05.2008 , passed by the District Forum, Amritsar, partly allowing the consumer complaint no. 738/2007 dated 08.11.2007 filed by the present respondent, was modified.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Harish Soni filed the consumer complaint in question, against the petitioner, which are a coaching institute that prepares the students for getting admission in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and other engineering entrance examinations. The complainant alleged that his daughter Hitu Soni passed ICSE examination of 10th standard in March 2006, securing 89% marks from the Sacred Heart High School, Amritsar. She took admission in the coaching centre at Amritsar, being run by the petitioners and paid an advance fee of 1,23,464.00 on 15.04.2006 for getting admission in 'FIIT JEE Pinnacle' two years' integrated programme. She studied at the institute of the petitioner for one year, but being not satisfied by the education provided by them, decided to withdraw from the said institute. A registered AD notice dated 26.04.2007 was sent by the complainant for the refund of the remaining fees along with interest and compensation. On the refusal of the petitioners to refund the said amount, the consumer complaint in question was filed.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioners/OP by filing a written version before the District Forum in which they stated that as agreed between them and the complainant, the fee once paid was not refundable at all, neither it was adjustable for any other course. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund an amount of 61,732.00, being 50% of the total amount of 1,23,464.00 deposited by the complainant. The District Forum held that the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience demand that half of the fees should be refunded, because the complainant never availed the services of the OPs for the full period of two years for which the fee was charged by them. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was partly accepted and the order of the District Forum was modified by directing that the petitioner/OP shall refund fees, excluding the service tax for the unutilised period, i.e., the second-year with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation. A sum of 10,000.00 was also awarded to the complainant as litigation expenses. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner /OP is before us by way of the present revision petition.