PIE SOLUTIONS AND SYSTEMS LTD vs DAYA SHANKER MISHRA

-THE revision petitioner is the Director of PIE Education. Aggrieved by the order dated 9. 11. 2005 passed by the learned State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. FA-504/2005 which directed to refund the admission fee of Rs. 30,000 while setting aside the compensation of Rs. 5,000 and interest awarded by the District Forum. We heard the petitioner at the admission stage and decided the matter. Brief facts of the case are: the petitioner, PIE Education prepares and coaches students for IIT-JEE i. e. the Joint Entrance Examination for Admission to Indian Institute of Technology (IIT ). Respondent Dr. Daya Shanker Mishra''s minor son Ankit Mishra joined the one year programme of the petitioner''s designated as IOCP XII pass. This was meant for XII passed students and students appearing for the XII standard examination were also eligible to join this course. On behalf of Ankit Mishra the respondent Dr. Mishra paid a total fee of Rs. 30,000 for the course on 28. 4. 2002. However, unfortunately respondent''s son failed in the XII standard examination and thus became ineligible to sit for the IIT-JEE. The respondent informed the petitioner and demanded the refund of his money and on refusal by the petitioner a legal notice was served on him on 21. 8. 2002.

IN these circumstances, a complaint has been filed in the District Forum, Delhi and the petitioner was directed to refund the admission fee of Rs. 30,000 with interest at 9%, compensation of Rs. 5,000 for harassment and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation. On Appeal by the petitioner the State Commission held that it is unfair trade practice to retain the amount and directed the petitioner to refund the admission fee of Rs. 30,000 but set aside the compensation of Rs. 5,000 and waived the interest. Revision petitioner argued that the respondent in order to gain an unfair advantage of paying lesser fee amounting to Rs. 2,000 declared in the enrolment form that his son has passed XII standard. The respondent would have otherwise paid Rs. 32,000 towards fees had he declared that his son has not passed XII standard. It is also argued that the respondent also to receive study material package and a bag on 28. 4. 2002. The respondent informed the petitioner through a letter posted on 17. 6. 2002 that his son failed in 10+2 exam of CBSE Board and requested that the fee paid be adjusted in the next session. The petitioner did not accede to the request of the petitioner because, (a) respondent was guilty of misrepresenting facts relating to his son declaring his XII pass; (b) because Rule 1 of the Rules and regulations duly signed by the respondent clearly laid down that "fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances like transfers/medical reasons/inability to cope with the syllabus etc. ; and (c) because Rule 4 further stipulated that "fees paid for a particular course will not be adjusted in any other course".

Although respondent asked only for adjustment of fee in next session initially, in the legal notice dated 21. 8. 2002, he demanded refund of the entire amount. The petitioner argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part on the following grounds; that the son of the respondent could continue in the present coaching course; when the student does not continue the course, the seat would remain vacant throughout the academic year; and that the order of the State Commission be set aside and prayed for awarding costs in favour of the petitioner.

WE heard both the parties at length and perused the record carefully. The entire case hinges on the Clause 1 of the rules and regulations which was signed by respondent and his son which reads as under: " (i) Fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances like transfers/medical reasons/inability to cope with syllabus, etc. " It is clear that the present case does not fall under any transfer or a medical reasons or inability to cope with the syllabus but a situation which called for the adjustment of this amount to the next session in a situation where the respondent''s son did not pass XII standard. On the refusal to adjust this amount for the next session by the petitioner then the respondent had to send a legal notice for the entire refund and further acted on by filing this complaint against petitioner.

It is clear that no service was provided but consideration has been received by the petitioner. Merely because the respondent gave wrong declaration to obtain discount of Rs. 2,000 should not be reason to swallow the entire amount of Rs. 30,000. In our opinion this is an unfair trade practice considering the petitioner is an educational institute. Instead of teaching and promoting ethical standards in their institute, they tried unethical practice to enrich themselves. Firstly, Clause 1 of the rules and regulations is not attracted in a situation as failure in XII standard has not been taken into consideration at all in the clause above. Secondly, the IOCP-XII pass programme allowed to pay fees in instalment if student opts out of the programme after paying the first instalment. There is no provision that the balance fees shall be recoverable from him in such cases of part payment on instalments. Here is the case that the respondent paid the full fee and such a person is being put into disadvantage vis-a-vis students who opts to pay in instalment. Thirdly, the petitioner has not brought on record that the seat was vacant through the year and that they were put to loss. Fourthly, it is not a regular college with rules and regulations regarding any restriction of allocation of limited number of seats for exams. It is a training institute where there is no rule to stop them from admitting more students and there is no reason for them not to admit more students in such a situation. In the very beginning itself the petitioner ought to have deducted the cost of study material which he seems to be arguing about now without any evidence lead before or even at this stage. They are unable to give us the details of the cost of study material which has been given in the first instance.

TAKING overall view of the case, we hold that petitioner is guilty of deficiency in service and also hold that he adopted unfair trade practice in retaining the fees paid by the respondent without rendering any service. The State Commission rightly set aside the interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 and directed them to refund Rs. 30,000 to the respondent. There is no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order of the State Commission for us to interfere and hence we affirm the same. Revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.