Kerela State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Deficiency In Services And Unfair Trade Practices

The Kerela State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Mr. Justice Sri. B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Mr. Sri. Ajith Kumar. D (Judicial Member) and Sri. Radhakrishnan. K. R (Member) held FIITJEE Ltd. liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices as it failed to fulfil its promise. Brief facts: The complainant took admission in 'Pinnacle two-year integrated school program' of FIITJEE Ltd. (Appellant) for June,2014. This program was in collaboration with M/s Saraswathy Vidya Nikathen, Senior Public School, Elamakkara, for imparting CBSE Plus two-course along with IIT, JEE entrance course. Even before 10th grade results of the Complainant, FIITJEE collected Rs. 3,55,201/- from him. The complainant was promised a bath attached double room. Instead, he was accommodated in a dormitory with 16 students in a 300 sq. ft area and common washroom. Due to poor infrastructure and unqualified faculty, the complaint got psychological stress and left the course just after three days. Later, he joined CMI Public School for the academic years 2014-15. The complainant was denied refund even after several requests. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam for refund of Rs. 3,34,797/- with 12% interest with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Through an order dated 28.11.2014, the District Commission directed FITTJEE to refund Rs. 3,55,201/, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs. Dissatisfied by the order, FIITJEE Ltd. filed an appeal in the Kerela State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”). Contentions of FIITJEE: The Appellant denied allegations of deficiency in service as the complainant cannot be a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. Based on FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Mayank Tiwari (R P No. 4335 of 2014), the appellant is an educational institution and it does not provide services. FIITJEE also contested that they were not liable because as per the undertaking the fee was non-refundable. They denied allegations of inadequate faculty as B.Ed is not mandatory for coaching facility. Further, they pointed out that the complainant claimed Rs. 3,34,797/- but the District Commission directed them to pay an Rs. 3,55,291/-. Also, the complainant failed to pay the post-dated checks for Rs. 1,07,304/-. Observation of the State Commission: The Commission held that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Reliance was placed on Manu Solanki Vs Vinayaka Mission University (2020 SCC online 7 decided 20.01.2020). The commission ruled that clause 10 of the undertaking in the form was unilateral and arbitrary as it stated that no refunds would be given under any circumstances. Further, it was observed that there was no evidence of bounced checks given by the complainant. The Commission held that due to the unfulfilled promises and concerns about complainant's future, the complainant is entitled to receive a refund. Therefore, the commission partly allowed the decision of District commission without any infirmity and corrected the compensation amount from 3,55,201 to 3,34,797, while all the other terms remained unchanged. Case Title: FIITJEE Ltd. vs Master George Joseph Pynadath Case No: First Appeal No. A/814/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 22.11.2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Kerela State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Deficiency In Services And Unfair Trade Practices

Amrisha Kumari

Tags