Full Judgment
Dev Raj, Member:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.1.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint in the following manner:-
œ12. Resultantly, in view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the balance fee amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.
This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.11,000/- + Rs.7000/- i.e. total Rs.18,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 11.11.2013 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid.?
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got his son Adarsh Aggarwal admitted in the Opposite Party - Institute for attending coaching classes in Chemistry subject for preparation of IIT in Feb., 2013 for which he paid a total sum of Rs.30,000/- through cheque as well as cash. It was stated that at the time of joining the Opposite Party - Institute, the complainant was made to understand that he was required to pay the fee for full year but, in case, he wished to discontinue the study for any reason, in between, the fee for the remaining period would be refunded proportionately. It was further stated that the son of the complainant attended the classes from 22.4.2013 to 8.8.2013. It was further stated that the complainant informed the Opposite Party on 8.8.2013 that his son was not interested in attending the classes and, as such, he was leaving the Institute/Classes with immediate effect. It was further stated that the son of the complainant attended the classes in Opposite Party - Institute for about 3½ months. It was further stated that, accordingly, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to refund the fee for the remaining period of eight months after deducting the attendance period of 3½ half months, rounded as four, but it (Opposite Party) initially kept on dilly-dallying the matter and later on flatly refused to refund any amount. It was further stated that, ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Party, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, 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 seeking direction to the Opposite Party, to refund the balance fee of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum; pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony besides cost of litigation.
3. Opposite Party, in its written statement, denied that the the son of the complainant was admitted in the Opposite Party - Institute in February 2013, instead he was admitted on 22.4.2013. It was stated that the payment of Rs.20,000/- was made through three cheques by the complainant. It was, however, denied that the complainant made cash payment of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Party. It was stated that the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- and his son attended the classes for four months for which the refund amount came to be Rs.1,000/- only after deducting the amount of Rs.19,000/- (Rs.30,00/- non-refundable admission/registration fee + Rs.16,000/- as tuition fee @Rs.4000/- per month). It was further stated that Rs.1,000/- was offered to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same. It was further stated that the terms and conditions regarding the refund of fee were duly printed on the admission form, which were accepted by the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The complainant, filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant was admitted on 22.4.2013, and at the time of admission, no cash payment was made. It was further submitted that tuition fee was Rs.4,000/- per month. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.20,000/-, at three stages through cheques i.e. Rs.5,000/- each vide cheques dated 22.4.2013 and 6.5.2013 and Rs.10,000/- vide cheque dated 17.5.2013. It was further submitted that as per Clause 10(a) of Admission Form, Exhibit R-1, Registration fee of Rs.3,000/- was not refundable and as per Clause 10(b), a student could withdraw or ask for refund and the fees was refundable after deducting registration fee of Rs.3,000/- and tuition fee @Rs.4000/- per month. It was further submitted that since the student took coaching for four months, the appellant/Opposite Party was entitled to Rs.16,000/- plus Rs.3,000/-. It was further submitted that as pleaded in Para 6 of the written statement, the respondent/complainant was offered refund of Rs.1,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the admission form.
10. The Counsel for the the respondent/complainant, submitted that a total fee of Rs.30,000/- was paid. It was further submitted that the course was of one year duration and the classes were to be held till the final examination. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/Opposite Party to refund the balance fee of Rs.11,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation cost.
11. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant attended the classes for about four months. It is also in evidence that the respondent/complainant, paid a total sum of Rs.20,000/-. The payment of Rs.10,000/-, reportedly made in cash, is not substantiated by any cogent and convincing evidence. The contention of the appellant/Opposite Party that it was entitled to retain Rs.19,000/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- being non-refundable fee and Rs.16,000/- @Rs.4,000/- per month on account of tuition fee is substantiated from contents of Clauses 10(a) and (b) of Exhibit R-1. The aforesaid clauses read as under:-
œ10. REFUND POLICY.
(a) No refund of Admission/Registration Fees of Rs.3000/- shall be made under any circumstances whatsoever.
(b) If any student pays the fee and wants to withdraw/asks for refund then fees will be refunded by deducting Registration Fee and Tuition Fee @Rs.4000/- per month.
Note:The calculation will be done from the date of submission of refund application and not on the basis of the number of classes attended by the student.?
12. However, when the respondent/complainant informed the appellant/Opposite Party, about his intention not to continue the classes in August, 2013, the appellant/Opposite Party was required to refund the refundable amount instantly or within a reasonable period, say a month or so, and should have sent the cheque refunding Rs.1,000/-. It, however, did not do so, despite various visits of the respondent/complainant, compelling him to file a complaint before the District Forum. The averment that it offered refund of Rs.1,000/- is of no significance when no refund in fact was made. This action of the appellant/Opposite Party clearly amounted to deficiency, in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
14. In view of the above, no doubt the appellant/Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice, by not refunding Rs.1,000/- but the order of the District Forum, in view of aforesaid discussion, needs modification. The compensation and cost of litigation, awarded by the District Forum, also seem to be on the higher side, which need to be suitably reduced. To this extent, the impugned order also needs to be modified.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is modified, to the extent, indicated hereunder;
"(i) The appellant/Opposite Party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent/complainant, instead of Rs.11,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
(ii) The appellant/Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-, as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the respondent/complainant, instead of Rs.7,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
(iii) The appellant/Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.4,000/-, as cost of litigation, to respondent/complainant, instead of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
(iv) The amounts mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) shall be paid by the appellant/Opposite Party, to the respondent/complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint i.e.11.11.2013, till realization, besides payment of costs aforesaid.
(v) All other directions, given and reliefs granted by the District Forum, in the impugned order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, which are contrary to and, in variance of this order, shall stand set aside."
16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.