Dr. Parminder Singh V/s M/s FIITJEE Limited and Ors. – ELJ 2015 [1]

Home » Judgements » Dr. Parminder Singh V/s M/s FIITJEE Limited and Ors. – ELJ 2015 [1]
August 17, 2016 Judgements No Comments
Print Judgement

opciones binarias es fraude STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Before: Justice Sham Sunder (Retd.), President, Mr. Dev Raj, Member, Mrs. Padma Pandey, Member)

enter site Dr. Parminder Singh                                                                                                    ……..( free binary options trading software download\'a=0 Appellant/Complainant)

Versus

 

The Managing Director/Chairman, M/s FIITJEE Limited and ors.                  get link …..(Respondents/Opposite Parties)

First Appeal No. : 16 of 2015, decided on January 21, 2015

Cases Referred:

  1. T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 22532 of 2012;
  2. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management v. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC)

http://salpasafarit.fi/?kalimo=ikili-opsiyonlar-%C5%9Fikayet&d79=2d Headnote:

http://www.cilentoescursioni.it/?kiskwa=come-avere-un-conto-demo-con-iq-option&2c2=53 Coaching Class – Deficiency in Services – Complainant enrolled his son for a two year for IIT-JEE – Paid partial amount and signed 6 cheques for the remaining amount – venue of the Coaching Centre changed unilaterally – Son felt that the method of teaching was not upto the mark – communication gap between faculty members and students – teachers not responding properly to the questions – matter raised multiple times – no action taken – son stopped attending the coaching class – requested for the refund of fee along with signed cheques aforesaid – coaching class put off the matter on one pretext or the other – filed a complaint alleging deficiency in services – District forum dismissed the complaint –

The future of aid for trade challenges and options Appeal – Dismissed – held that neither the student fell within the definition of a consumer, nor the opposite parties fell within the definition of Service Providers

Sham Sunder, J. (President)

1] This appeal is directed against the majority order dated 10.12.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). However, one member of the District Forum, recorded dissenting order dated 16.12.2014.

2] The facts, in brief, are that on the assurance given by the representative of the opposite parties, the complainant got enrolled his son namely Jyot Anmol Singh, in the Opposite Parties Institute in Pinnacle-Two Year Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE, on 30.12.2012. The complainant, paid an amount of Rs. 2,19,750, in total, against the settled fee of Rs. 2,69,628. Besides this, the opposite parties retained 6 signed cheques, issued by the complainant. It was settled between the complainant and the representative of the opposite parties that the venue of the Coaching Centre would be SCO No. 322, 1st and 2nd Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. However, the venue of the Coaching Centre was changed to Mount Carmel School, unilaterally. It was stated that while taking coaching, the son of the complainant experienced that the method of teaching was not upto the mark, as there was a communication gap between the faculty members and the students. Not only this, the son of the complainant, also noticed that the teachers were not responding properly to the questions raised by the students. The matter was reported to the authorities of the Institute, time and again, but except bald assertions, nothing was done. It was further stated that, on the directions of the Management of the opposite parties Institute, the son of the complainant, stopped attending the coaching classes and requested for the refund of fee along with signed cheques aforesaid, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 11.6.2014, upon the opposite parties, for refund of the fees, deposited towards the said Course, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties, to refund the amount of Rs. 2,19,750, along with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of admission; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs. 1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 33,000.

3] The opposite parties, in their joint written version pleaded that neither the son of the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, nor the opposite parties fell within the definition of Service Providers. It was, however, stated that the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the Institute of the opposite parties admitted/enrolled his son Master Jyot Anmol Singh in Pinnacle-Two Year Integrated School Program for IIT-JEE, on 30.12.2012, which was to commence on 18.4.2013. It was further stated that the total Course fees for two years, including service tax, cost of books and study material was Rs. 3,85,588. It was further stated that in view of the FTRE ranks obtained by the son of the complainant, he was offered 40% scholarship on tuition fee i.e. Rs. 1,02,960, 100% on examination fee and (AITS+GMP+RTPF) fee i.e. Rs. 9,000, respectively and as such, the complainant had to pay Rs. 2,69,628. It was further stated that as per the undertaking/declaration given and signed by the complainant, and as per the terms of agreement, fees once paid, was not refundable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4] The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5] After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Sh. Jaswinder Kumar, Executive Assistant of the opposite parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, vide majority order, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6] Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the majority order dated 10.12.2014.

7] We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

8] The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 22532 of 2012, decided on 9.8.2012, it was only held by the Supreme Court of India that the Universities being Educational Institutions were not providing any kind of service and, therefore, they neither fell within the definition of service providers, nor the students fell within the definition of consumers. He further submitted that, in the instant case, it was a private Educational Institution and not a University, wherein the son of the complainant took admission. He further submitted that, as such, the opposite parties fell within the definition of service providers and the son of the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9] After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the son of the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, and the opposite parties were service providers. In P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 22532 of 2012, decided on 9.8.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under:

“In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”  

10] Not only this, in Regional Institute of Cooperative Management v. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC) : Revision Petition No. 638 of 2014, decided on 2.5.2014, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that neither the student, fell within the definition of a consumer, nor the opposite parties fell within the definition of Service Providers. The principle of law, laid down, in P.T. Koshy & Anr. and Regional Institute of Cooperative Management’s cases (supra), is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In this view of the matter, the District Forum was also right, in holding that the complainant, being a student, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, nor the opposite parties, being Educational Institution, could be said to be Service Providers, as the education is not a commodity and, as such, the consumer complaint was not maintainable. The findings of the District Forum, vide its majority order, in this regard being correct are affirmed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

11] No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.

12] In view of the above discussion, it is held that the majority order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13] For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The majority order of the District Forum is upheld.

14] The complainant/respondent shall, however, be at liberty to resort to any other legal remedy, which may be available to him.

15] Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Appeal Dismissed.

 

LEAVE A COMMENT