Full Judgment
Oral Judgment:?????????S.C. JAIN:
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order? dated 23.2.2012 of District Forum III, Janakpuri, New Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. 39/09. 2. The brief facts leading to the complaint are that the complainants daughter Ms. Shilpa Rawat joined two years coaching course with the appellant/OP in the year 2008 in its Janakpuri Branch. She attended the classes from May, 2008 to November, 2008 and thereafter she stopped attending the classes as she was not satisfied? with the standard of coaching? of the appellant/OP institute.? The respondent/complainant requested the appellant/OP to refund the fees, but, on not receiving any response from the appellant/OP, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing the matter ordered the appellant/OP to refund? of 50% of Rs. 42,000/- i.e. Rs. 21,000/-, which was the advance fee taken by the appellant/OP for second year of coaching for which no services were rendered by the appellant/OP Institute.? The District Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the OP/appellant to the respondent/complainant for the inconvenience and hardship caused to her for non-refund of the course fee as well as for the false defence taken by the OP/Appellant and this compensation was awarded inclusive of litigation cost.
3. That is what brought the appellant/OP in appeal before this Commission.
4. Registered AD notice was sent to the respondent/complainant who appeared and contested her case.
5. The appellant/OP assailed the order of the District Forum mainly on the ground that the respondent/complainant paid them only Rs. 3000/- and had joined the classes for the period of 3 months only and had further contended that the respondent/complainant had never paid them Rs. 42,000/- as claimed because the respondent/complainant had also failed to produce any evidence in support of her contention that she had paid Rs. 42,000/- to the appellant and had further contended? that the cheque bearing No. 114886 for Rs. 42,000/- shown by the respondent/complainant to be withdrawn from her account was drawn not in favour of them but was drawn in favour of œSelf? and how the respondent/complainant can claim that Rs. 42,000/- was withdrawn by the appellant/OP.? The appellant/OP further stated that the name of issuer in the alleged receipt dated 30.4.2008 mentioned is œBrilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd.?, whereas the name of the Appellant is entirely different, which is œBrilliant Classes?.6. From the pleadings and record, the submissions made by the appellant/OP are totally false as the receipt dated 30.4.2008 had been issued by the Brilliant Classes and the rubber stamp affixed on the receipt is of Brilliant Classes and not that of Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. as stated by appellant.? The initials of the signatures on the receipt tally with the signatures on the affidavit as well as on complaint and the appellant/OP cannot deny that the receipt has not been issued by them when the receipt had the signatures as well as stamp of the institute i.e. Brilliant Classes.? In the given facts, the appellant/OP cannot deny of having received of Rs. 42,000/- from the respondent/complainant.? The appellant/OP has not filed/produced any receipt of Rs. 3000/- and any proof of having received only Rs. 3000/- in lieu of 3 months course.? The identity card issued to the daughter of the respondent/complainant was valid till 31st March 2009 and if the student had joined the course only for 3 months then how she was issued the identity card for one year.? Issuance of identity card for one year clearly shows that the daughter of the complainant/respondent had joined the coaching classes for two years as stated by the Respondent/Complainant for which she had paid Rs. 42,000/-.
7. It is a well settled law that any coaching institute cannot charge fees for the period for which the student had not studied or in other words services had not been provided.
8. Honble National Commission in? FIIT-JEE had held that FIIT-JEE, which is a coaching institute, were obliged to return? the advance fees for the period when the student did not attend the course.? Honble National Commission in this case also held that students studying in these coaching institutes are covered under the definition of Consumer and institutes are the Service Providers and Honble National Commission held as follows:
œCoaching institutions may not be conventional, educational institutions but since they provide coaching and training to the students of an educational nature to equip them for higher studies in specialized educational institutions, the same principles that apply to educational institutions would also apply to these institutions in respect of the fees charged by them including advance fees.? In any case, respondents are consumers and? the petitioners are service providers.? Petitioners are rendering service for consideration and fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?.
The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Ors would, thus, override any bilateral agreement between the parties.? We are, therefore, of the considered view that respectfully following the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the petitioner/institute could not have charged full advance fees for two years and could have charged prescribed fees for one semester/year.
In the instant case, since the appellant/institution do not follow the semester system, they could have only charged advance fees for one year.? In view of these facts, the respondents are entitled to get refund of the fees after deducting the non-refundable service tax for the unattended second year of the course.
9. From the above discussions, it is very much clear that the respondent/complainant had deposited Rs. 42,000/- with the appellant/OP and had studied? for less than one year and according to the principle laid down by Honble National Commission, order of the District Forum for refund of one year fees taken in advance amounting to Rs. 21,000/- is justified and as far as the amount of compensation is concerned, according to Honble Supreme Court, the word compensation appearing in Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes each and every element of suffering by the consumer at the hands of service provider, which includes mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings, actual loss, expected loss and other injustice suffered by the consumer.
In this regard, the observations of Honble Supreme Court made in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 are quote worthy and are as under:
œThe word compensation is of a very wide connotation.? It may constitute actual loss? or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.? The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done.? The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.? The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act.? It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers.? Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.?
We have further extended the concept of compensation to the extent that those service providers who force a consumer to seek remedy before Consumer Forum or before any other legal forum to have their rightful claim are liable to pay in addition to what a consumer is otherwise entitled to as now a days the legal remedy is becoming costlier day by day and it is not only time consuming but at times tortuous also.? Rich and powerful business houses and other service providers drag the poor consumer to the last forum i.e. Supreme Court and it is after so many years that one poor consumer gets a final decision.
10.??? Taking over all view of the matter as well as reliefs sought by the respondent/complainant in their complaint before the District Forum and the deficiency in service and unfairness on the part of the Appellant/OP, which is writ large by charging two years fees in advance for the course, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order and find no illegality and any irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum.? We, accordingly, upheld the order passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 39/09 and dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
?11.?? The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12.??? The Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith as per rules.?????????????13.??? A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be provided to the parties free of charge as per law and one copy be also sent to the concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room.
14.??? Announced on? 10th? day of January, 2014.
Order announced separately, Appeal dismissed.