J.K. BUSINESS SCHOOL Vs. AMIT KAPOOR
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2009-1-9
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 06,2009

J.K. Business School Appellant
VERSUS
Amit Kapoor Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT (ORAL) - (1.)ON account of having denied the refund of fees in spite of having not attended even one semester of PGDMBA Course, the appellant has been vide impugned Order dated 15.5.2008 found guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as damages and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation and refund of Rs. 72,500 towards fees charged by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.)ALLEGATIONS of the respondent leading to the impugned Order were that in pursuance of Brochure and offer of the appellant School the respondent deposited Rs. 5,500 on 7.7.2006 and Rs. 72,500 as semester fees on 26.7.2006 for PGDBM plus MBA Degree as a two years full time course. On 19.8.2006 the respondent was shocked when he was asked to fill the admission form showing that the course being imparted would be a distance learning programme instead of a regular one. Therefore, on 8.9.2006 the respondent applied for refund of semester fee and security deposit. However, the appellant school refunded only the security deposit of Rs. 5,000. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of semester fee and compensation.
(3.)IN reply the appellant while raising the preliminary objection of the District Forum in Delhi not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the appellant school is situated in Guragaon, Haryana. Pleaded on merits that the appellant school conducts dual programme of imparting education of PGDBM and Degree of MBA simultaneously where the PGDBM is a two years full time programme, whereas MBA Degree is being conducted by UGC recognized 'A' grade University through the Directorate of Distance Education. Further that the respondent had attended a seminar on 24.6.2006 where everything was explained to him in detail regarding the institute, admission procedure and programme.
The main contentions of the Counsel for the appellant are firstly, that the District Forum has not dealt with the objection of territorial jurisdiction in toto; and secondly, the appellant has refunded the refundable amount as part of the fee i.e. processing fees of Rs. 9,000 was passed on to the University and further that the respondent has studied for a considerable period and, therefore, he was not entitled for refund of the fees and more over the appellant charged only fees for first semester and not for the whole duration.



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