FIIT JEE LIMITED Vs. MINATHI RATH
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-10-10
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 04,2006

FIIT JEE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
MINATHI RATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT - (1.) APPELLANT claims to be an institute of repute. It prepares the students for entrance examination for IIT -JEE, etc. The appellant charged a fees of Rs. 61,020 in lump sum for training course for two years and that too in advance for the Session April, 2004 to March, 2006 for preparation for IIT entrance examination. It is alleged that the appellant gave assurance at the time of admission that a personalized attention will be paid to each and every student. After having attended the session for one year in a class consisting of 40 students, respondents daughter found it like ordinary schools and teachers rushing to finish the course before the scheduled time without any personal attention to the students. This was the betrayal of the expectations of the respondent and she decided to leave the course in the midstream and demanded refund of the balance fees. On refusal by the appellant to refund the fees, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
(2.) WHILE allowing the complaint of the respondent, the District Forum only directed the appellant to refund the balance fee of Rs. 28,000 for the period for which the respondents daughter did not attend the classes and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation.
(3.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order firstly on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the course, the fee once paid was not refundable and secondly, respondent left the course in mid -way as she was not able to cope up with the rigours of studies and curriculum, being conducted at the appellants classes and had voluntarily withdrawn herself from the classes and thirdly that the students aspiring for admission in I.I.T. join the Institute because of its high reputation and no student or candidate leaves the course in between may be for any reason whatsoever. At the outset we are constrained to observe that such type of institutes have become commercial shops. The very fact of charging the lump sum fee for the entire duration of two years in advance and that too for the period for which they are yet to provide the service of tuition is highly unethical, unscrupulous and unfair trade practice and this is an indirect way to earn large amount of money and to earn undue profit by exploiting the poor students as for few seats there are thousands of aspirants and in the process, such institutes become unjustly rich by way of collecting the fees for two or three years in advance in lump sum. No service provider can charge a fee/consideration for a period for which the service has yet to be provided. By charging fee in lump sum as in this case was charged for two years course in advance such Institutes not only exploit the student community but also bind the students not to leave the Institute whatever quality of education or training there may be.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.