Consumer Court Directs Coaching Institute to Refund Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the student

The District Consumer forum of Pune directed the Coaching Institute to refund Rs. 25,000/- along with 9 % interest from the date of filing till the recovery and further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and mental agony caused to the Complainant student.

In the year 2014, the Complainant student Mr. Prasad Mahajan had taken admission to the Respondents coaching institute named I.A.N.T (Institute of Advance Networking & Technology) through its Franchisee Shreya Infotech who is dealing with training IT Professionals and imparting Advanced Computer Education. 

The Complainant took admission in the said institute by paying Rs. 25,000/- as admission fees. In the meanwhile the Complainant was also trying to pursue for another course of Travel and Tourism and after two days he came to know that his name was listed in another college which he wanted in the third list and hence accordingly he requested the Respondent to cancel his admission and refund his entire fees of Rs. 25,000/-.

The Respondent refused for the same by taking shelter under the terms and conditions put forth by them in the admission form which stated “Fees once paid will not be refundable and course degradation is not allowed”. Aggrieved by the conduct of the Respondent, the Complainant filed complaint to the District Consumer Forum to seek refund of his entire amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 

Advocate Gandhar Sonis representing the Complainant argued that, ‘ such kind of one sides clauses, terms and conditions in the Admission form are unjust, unconstitutional, unethical and hence amounts to unfair trade practice. When a student signs on a admission form, he doesn’t have much option left other than accepting the terms and conditions and hence the bargaining power is unequal between the parties as such rule/clause being unfair, unreasonable and imposed on a weaker section by the mighty one cannot be enforced. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act says that any contract that is contrary to the law and is opposed to public policy is void and hence not enforceable. 

Action of Respondent in forfeiting hard earned money of the Complainant by seeking shelter under the terms and conditions mentioned in the admission form is a clear cut deficiency in service and hence bad, erroneous and unacceptable in the eyes of law and humanity’. Advocate Sonis further relied on various citations of Hon’ble National Commission in Birla Institute of Technology vs Abhishek Mengi & FIITJEE vs Dr. Minathi Rath.

The Respondent on the other hand argued that he was not deficient in service and that the Complainant had gone through the terms and conditions mentioned in the admission form before signing and hence there is a written contract which is binding on both the parties.

both the parties and perusing documents and evidence on record, the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum presided by bench of Justice Umesh V. Jawalikar and members Mrs. Sangita Deshmukh and Mrs. Kshitija Kulkarni held the Respondent liable for indulging in unfair trade practice which amounted to deficiency in service.

Merely on the basis of typed terms and conditions on the Admission form without any document on record showing that the Complainant had voluntarily signed on the said without any coercion, forfeiting of the fees is not justified. The Forum accordingly directed the Respondent to refund the entire fees of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant along with 9 % interest from the date of filing till the recovery within 6 weeks.

In addition to this, the Forum also directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation and for causing mental agony within 6 weeks. 

Case Title – Kaustubh alias Prasad Suhas Mahajan vs IANT & Shreya Infotech. 

For Complainant – Adv. Gandhar A. Sonis