Delhi State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Holding Entire Course Fee Collected In Advance

The Delhi State Commission bench presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Judicial Member Pinki and General Member J.P Agrawal has held that coaching institutes collecting fees for the entire course in advance can use the said fees only for the particular semester and the balance amount to be kept deposited in a bank account. Brief background: The complainant's daughter joined a two year classroom program at FIITJEE for preparation of CAT by paying the full course fee in advance. On the daughter's inability to give sufficient time to these classes and due to academic pressure, she decided to discontinue the coaching. The complainant subsequently requested the institute to refund the course fee of Rs. 1,34,015/- paid by him. Despite several communications and visits, the said amount was not refunded to him. Hence, the complainant approached the consumer forum praying for appropriate compensation. The institute relied on the clauses of the enrolment form and argued that fees once paid cannot be refunded. The District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and held FIITJEE liable for charging the entire course fee for two years in advance. It observed that the institute should have refunded the fee for at least one year. Accordingly, it directed the institute to pay 50% of the course fee to the complainant along with Rs. 20,000 as inconvenience costs. The said decision was challenged by FIITJEE before the State Commission. Observations: The bench relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Islamic Academy of Education vs State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 wherein it was held that if an educational institution collects entire fee in advance, only fee for the relevant semester can be used and the balance to be kept invested in a fixed deposit. At the end of the course, the interest earned on such deposits must be paid back to the student. The bench observed that the institute has failed to file any evidence to prove that the directions as stated above have been complied with. It was held that the institute was deficient in providing its services to the complainant. Thus, the order of the district commission was upheld by the state commission and the appeal was dismissed. Case Title: FIITJEE vs Rajeev Luthra Case Number: First Appeal 249/2014 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Delhi State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Holding Entire Course Fee Collected In Advance

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags