AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 721 words-THE complainant is appellant. He has challenged the impugned judgment dated 11. 2. 2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi, in Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2006, whereby complaint was dismissed.
THE complainant was selected in one year extended C. R. P. course on 31. 7. 2005 and deposited a sum of Rs. 58,406. 00 by bank draft No. 277598, dated 5. 8. 2005. He took admission and was given enrolment No. CPARC 0560115 on 6. 8. 2005 by FIITJEE, Ranchi Classes Ltd. Subsequently, the complainant did not intend to study in FIITJEE, Ranchi and sent request letters on 31. 8. 2005 and again on 16. 9. 2005 to the Manager, Central Operation FIITJEE, Ranchi to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 58,406. 00, as he did not attend class even for a single day, but neither the amount was refunded nor any reply came.
On 15. 10. 2005 the complainant sent legal notice, which was replied on 18. 10. 2005 and refund of the aforesaid amount was refused. After quoting certain paragraphs of the enrolment form, it was stated in reply that fee once paid was not refundable.
IN the complaint, claim was made for refund of the principal amount of Rs. 58,406. 00 and for payment of compensation and litigation cost at Rs. 1 lac. The District Forum found that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties were in dominant position in filling the form for enrolment containing terms and conditions of admission in the institution. In our view the District Consumer Forum was not in a position to go beyond the terms and conditions signed by the complainant. Legality of such conditions could have been considered only by the Civil Court. Non-refund of admission fee was the guiding factor for the parties and the complainant was not entitled for the refund of any amount, including the amount of compensation and litigation cost.
IT is relevant to quote paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the declaration duly signed by the complainant and his guardian on 6. 8. 2005: "4. I understand that if I fail to complete/submit all remaining formalities/documents, if any, upto two days prior to the start of the classes, unless otherwise allowed in writing. I shall not be allowed to attend the classes till the needful is done, and in that case I or my parents/guardian shall have no claim for refund of fees or any compensation, including in studies.
I understand that if I leave the institute before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including transfer of parents/guardians/ill health of self on any other member of the family or my admission in any institute/engineering college, etc. or my studentship is cancelled because of misconduct, etc. I or my parents/guardian shall have no claim for refund of fees.
In addition to the above, I understand without any ambiguity that the fee once paid is not refundable at all, whatever the reasons be. "
It is well settled that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to consider legality or declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable. The aforesaid provisions contained in the prospectus, pursuant to which the complainant deposited fee for taking admission have binding force and it is for Civil Court to consider the legality and declare any clause in the prospectus of any institution as illegal. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of the National Consumer Commission in Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh v. Miss Gunita Virk, I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC ). In this decision, the National Commission also held that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. In the present case, declaration on the part by the complainant that the fee once paid by him was not refundable at all, whatever the reason be, in our opinion, is fatal for him.
IN the aforesaid circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in this appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. The complainant/appellant is not entitled either for refund of the amount is question or payment of any compensation and litigation cost.
IN the result, the appeal is dismissed, but without cost. Appeal dismissed.
