Fiitjee Ltd. vs Varjeet Walia

DESPITE service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. Same was the position on the last date of hearing. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

THE short question arising for consideration in this Revision Petition by an educational Institution, namely, FIITJEE Limited is whether or not the Foras below were justified in directing the refund of a sum of Rs. 52,530/ - along with interest, deposited by the Complainant/Respondent as tuition fee at the time of joining the Institution for taking coaching for Entrance Examination for an engineering course. Since, in our view, the said issue is no longer Res -integra insofar as the question of refund of tuition fee is concerned, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, in greater detail. It would suffice to note that after taking admission for coaching in the said Institution, the Respondent attended the coaching classes only for 6 or 7 days, though the course was for a period of two years. However, having realized that the standard of coaching in the Institution was not the same, as was declared in the prospectus issued by the Petitioner, the Respondent decided to quit the said course. Accordingly, it asked the Petitioner to refund the aforesaid amount deposited by him.

HAVING failed to elicit any response from the Petitioner, the Respondent filed the Complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short "the District Forum"), inter alia, praying for a direction to the Petitioner to refund the said amount along with interest @12% p.a. The District Forum accepted the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to refund the said amount to the Respondent/Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.01.2007 till actual realization.

BEING aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter in Appeal to the State Commission. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Revision Petition. A similar issue came up for consideration before two coordinate Benches of this Commission. Vide order dated 21.05.2014 in Revision Petition No. 4476 of 2013, taking note of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka : (2003) 6 SCC 697 relied upon by the lower Fora in this case as well, and certain decisions of this Commission, the Bench came to the conclusion that since the Petitioner Institute had charged only 10% of the tuition fee from the Complainant''s son, there was no justification for directing refund of an amount of Rs. 51,831/ - to the Complainant. Similarly, vide order dated 09.01.2015, in Revision Petition No. 2684 of 2014, another Bench of this Commission has come to the conclusion that having joined the course in the Petitioner Institution, the Complainant could not ask for the refund of the tuition fee paid by him. However, in the penultimate paragraph the Bench has directed the Petitioner''s Managing Director to file an affidavit stating that the seat vacated by the Complainant at the relevant point of time, during the duration of the course, was not filled up. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has stated before us that as per his instructions, it is the policy of the Petitioner Institution not to fill up any vacancy, which may be created by vacation of the seat by any candidate, after joining the coaching course.

IN view of the above, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order and dismiss the Complaint, but with no order to costs.

IT will be open to the Petitioner to withdraw the amount(s) deposited by it in this Commission as well as in the State Commission, except the statutory deposit.