Brilliant Tutorials Pvt Ltd vs Ashwani Verma

HEARD Counsel for the petitioner, who has placed before us some judgments of this Commission as also two judgments of Delhi High Court. He submits that the respondent-complainant had agreed to the terms and had taken admission according to the said terms. The fees paid were non-refundable and the respondent is bound by the terms of the contract.

ON the other hand, the respondent, who appeared in person, relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 697. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this ruling is not applicable since the petitioner is not an educational institution.

ADMITTEDLY, the son of the Respondent/Complainant had taken admission in the Petitioner''s Institute. The petitioner had collected a sum of Rs. 80,337 from the son of the complainant as fees for two academic years. However, the son of the complainant left after about 9 months and sought refund of half of the amount paid by him.

BEFORE the District Forum the matter proceeded ex parte against the present petitioner. The petitioner had not placed any substantive defence before the District Forum. The District Forum had ordered refund of Rs. 36,000 being fees for one academic year as also compensation of Rs. 3,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000. The appeal filed by the present petitioner to set aside ex parte judgment of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission had relied upon the following observations in para 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka and Other (supra), which reads as under: "8. It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance".

THE Apex Court while dealing with the educational institutions had taken note of the fact that fees were being collected in advance for the entire course i.e. for all the years. Keeping this fact in view, as also the fact that student may leave mid-stream and the seat would lie vacant, it was observed that an educational institution could only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year. However, for the balance fees for the remaining years bond or bank guarantee could be obtained. It was further observed that if any institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution and the balance fees must be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. As and when the fees are due for the next semester/year, the same can be withdrawn and the rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due and the interest earned on those deposits must be paid to the students from whom the fees was collected in advance. The principles laid down by the Apex Court would apply with equal force to the training institutes who collect fees in advance, though not due, in order to prepare the students for various examinations. Charging fees in advance beyond the current semester/year would certainly amount to unfair trade practice and the same cannot be countenanced. We have already pointed out that no substantive pleadings were filed by the petitioner before the District Forum in so far as factual matrix of the matter is concerned.

IN view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.