Date of admission: 30-08-2018

Date of Disposal: 25-05-2022

EFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: GUNTUR

Present: Smt. T. Suneetha, M.S.W., B.L., P.G.Dip.C.L.P. PRESIDENT

Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi, B.Com., L.L.B, MEMBER
Sri. G. Punna Reddy, B.A., B.L., MEMBER

Wednesday, the 25th day of May, 2022

CC.No.101 of 2018
Between:
1. Kanjula Lakshmi Leelaja, D/o.K.Satyanarayana Reddy,
2. Kanjula Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.(late) Gangi Reddy,
R/o. Door No.2-14-190, Shamala Nagar, 1st line,
Hakruthi High School, Guntur. …Complainants
and

M/s. Vajiram & Ravi Coaching Institute,

Rep. by its Director,
o/o.9-B, Bada Bazar Marg,
Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi-60. …Opposite party

This complaint coming-up before us for hearing on 05-05-2022 and

of Sri D.V. Ramana Reddy, advocate for complainants and of
Sri K. Venkateswarlu, advocate for opposite party having on record, and
upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for
consideration, this Forum made the following:

ORDER

Per Smt. K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Member: This complaint is filed u/s.35 of

the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking directions against the opposite
party for refund of the balance amount after deducting legally payable
charges out of Rs.1,51,000/- with interest @18% p.a., from 25-10-2016 till
the date of realization, besides costs, to the complainants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the 1st complainant on ascertaining the
details about the opposite party‟s coaching institute through online for the
Indian Forest Service‟s Competitive Examinations, submitted online
application No.19, vide batch No.21 and got admitted herself, by paying fee
of Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,000/- towards other incidental charges by way of
DD bearing No.828346, dated 07-09-2016, with the financial assistance
provided by the Andhra Bank, Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur, vide loan
application No.04250000359, dated 18-08-2016 and sanctioned
Rs.1,50,000/- with repayment schedule of 36 monthly equated installments
of Rs.5,123/- per month. Thereafter, complainant No.1 joined and attended
the classes from 19-09-2016 to 23-10-2016, while matter stood thus, the
 2

mother of the 1st complainant fell ill due to ailment being continued from
June, 2016 and admitted in M/s. Hyma Hospitals, Guntur, as such, 1st
complainant compelled to stop attending her classes as she has to come
back to look after her mother, and the 1st complainant vacated her hostel on
25-10-2016 and requested the opposite party for refund of amount after
deducting the legally payable amount out of Rs.1,51,000/- and submitted
her requisition letter to that effect, but there was no response from the
opposite parties, so on 19-11-2016, the complainants have got issued a
legal notice requesting to refund the amount, having acknowledged the
notice, they neither responded nor replied. Hence, the complaint stating
that opposite party has committed deficiency of service.

3. The brief facts of the version/written statement of the opposite party is

that, the complainant sought admission and accordingly, she paid
Rs.1,51,000/- vide DD.No.828346, dated 07-09-2016 drawn on Andhra
Bank, and joined the course on 10-09-2016 upon making a formal
application for classroom guidance program in General Studies and CSAT for
Preliminary-cum-Main examination conducted by the UPSC, and was issued
study material for all subjects and also given access to online classes and
use of the latest preparatory material made available on the website of the
opposite party for a period of 24 months from the date of enrolment, though
the complainant opted for a limited period of course i.e., for 9 months.
The opposite party submits that, on account of heavy rush, they seek
admission for various courses through their online website for the students,
who seek admission, and the institute can only accept and admit limited
students, if any person not seeking admission despite online registration
forfeits her right to seek admission and thereafter the next person is offered
admission, and the said fee/paym ent made by the complainant only after
duly agreeing to the stipulation that „fee paid will not be refunded‟.
Moreover, this opposite party did not receive any requisition from either the
student or her guardian about her grievance to refund the amount after
deducting the legally pa yable amount out of Rs.1,51,000/-. All the
allegations mentioned in the complaint are all denied as not true, and the
complaint is not maintainable on the points of, mis-joinder and non-joinder
of necessary party and for want of territorial jurisdiction and prays for
dismissal of complaint with costs.
 3

4. At the time of enquiry, the 2nd complainant filed his evidence-affidavit as

PW1, reiterating the contents of the complaint, and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8,
while Mr. Arjun Ravindran, Partner of M/s.Vajiram and Ravi IAS Study
Centre LLP on behalf of opposite party, filed his evidence-affidavit,
reiterating the contents of the version as DW1, and marked Exs.B-1 and
B-2 on their behalf.

5. On consideration of the entire case record, the points that arise for
consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable on the point of misjoinder

and non-joinder of necessary party?
2. Whether this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint?
3. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
party?
4. To what relief?

6. POINT No.1:- It is the contention of the opposite party that the name
of the opposite party as per records “M/s. Vaji Ram & Ravi IAS Study centre
LLP” where as the complainant shown the name of the opposite party as
“M/s.Vajiram & Ravi Coaching Institute” and therefore it is contended that
the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder and
non-joinder of the necessary party and also relied upon Judgement of,
GAWAHATI HIGH COURT reported in ‘1994 SCC online Gau-9’ in case of
Chupa Temsu AO & Ors. Vs. Nangponger & Ors.,

7. It is the contention of the complainant that, there is no non-joinder or

misjoinder of the parties and further contended that, it is only a
misdescription of the party. As can be seen from the record the opposite
parties received legal notice sent by the complainant through his advocate
and also received the notices sent in the present case, even though the
opposite party was shown as Vajiram and Ravi Coaching Institute. They
entered their appearance and filed their version and there is no dispute
about the 1st complainant‟s admission with the opposite party. Therefore,
 4

this Commission feels that, no prejudice is caused to the opposite party by

the misdescription of the party in the cause title.

The facts and circumstances in the Judgement relied upon by the

opposite party are different from the facts of the present case. In the said
Judgement the Hon‟ble High Court of Gawahati was dealing with a case
where the necessary party was not impleaded. In this case as already
observed it is not a case of misjoinder or non-joinder of a party, but only a
misdescription. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly in favour of
the complainants and against the opposite parties.

8. POINT No.2:- The opposite party specifically pleaded that, this

commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint,
in as much as, the office of the opposite party is situated at New Delhi and
that the classes to be conducted at New Delhi and no part of the cause of
action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and
therefore, this complaint may be dismissed.

9. It is the contention of the complainant that, the application for

admission was submitted through online from Guntur and the complainants
availed education loan at Guntur and obtained demand draft at Guntur,
therefore, part of cause of action arose at Guntur and therefore, this
Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
This complaint is filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
which is an old Act, and the same was repealed by the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 and which reads as follows:
As per Section-11 (2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
and as well as Section-34(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
deals with „Jurisdiction‟ of District Commission, where “the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises”.
Thus, in this case admittedly, the 1st complainant submitted her
application for admission through online portal from Guntur and also
obtained education loan and paid fee by way of DD, obtained from the
Andhra Bank at Guntur, which falls within the jurisdiction of this
Forum/Commission, and whether the place where the online transaction was
initiated is part of cause of action has been considered by the Hon‟ble
“Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided on
 5

09-07-2021 in the case of, Sri Satyendra Nadh Basu Roy vs. The CEO,
Religare Health.
Therefore, it shall be deemed that, part of cause of action arose within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, thus this point is answered
accordingly in favour of complainants.

10. POINT No.3:- The facts of the case in brief are that, the complainant
took admission in the coaching centre of the opposite party, to get coaching
for Indian Administrative services, which was for duration of about 9 months
of classroom coaching with two years access to the online courses. Though
the fee for entire course i.e., Rs.1,51,000/- by availing personal loan from
Andhra Bank, Guntur, was paid, the complainant discontinued the studies
after three weeks on the ground of ill-health of her mother and asked for
refund of the balance fee, which was declined, therefore, this complaint.
The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground
that, at the time of admission, it was expressly stipulated that, „the fee paid
will not be refunded‟ and that the same has been duly agreed by the
complainant, and further contended that their institution is well-known
institute preparing candidates for the Civil Services Examination and it is
impossible to give admission to a new candidate in case, if any student who
decides to quit after four weeks and seeks refund.
It is admitted that, the 1st complainant took admission with opposite
party and the tuition fee for the entire course was paid on 10-09-2016 and
she attended the classes from 19-09-2016 to 23-10-2016 i.e., in all
1st complainant attended 34 days. Whereas, the opposite party claims that,
the 1st complainant attended classes for 5 weeks, and admits that they are
not maintaining any attendance register.
The main contention of the opposite party is that, in view of express
stipulation in the documents that, „the fee once paid shall not be refunded‟
and as the 1st complainant agreed for the same, therefore, the
1st complainant is not entitled for refund of the tuition fee.
The same issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of,
“Sehgal School of Competition vs. Dalbir Singh” reported in 2009
3 CPJ(NC) 33, in which it is held that,
 6

“An institution or coaching centre should not charge fee lum-sum

for whole duration of course and a condition in course terms and fee
was non-refundable would be biased and against the principles of
equity, natural justice and unfair trade practice”.

In another decision, the Hon’ble National Commission in FIITJEE

Limited vs. Shri Anil Kumar Jain reported in 2013 2 CPJ (NC) 668, it
was held that,
“Education Institution cannot forfeit admission fee on withdrawal from
course”

The facts of the said case are directly applicable to the facts of the
present case on hand, and therefore, the contention of the opposite party is
not tenable and the opposite party cannot be permitted to say that in view
of the stipulation that they are not liable to refund the tuition fee.
The other contention of the opposite party is that, it is impossible for
the opposite party to give admission to a new candidate in place of any
student who decides to quit after four weeks and seeks refund.
The opposite party filed his version wherein in para 7 it was averred
that, it is impossible for the opposite party to give admission to a new
candidate in place of any student who decides to quit after 4 weeks and
seeks refund. Very interestingly there is no such averment in the affidavit
filed by the opposite party. On the other hand, the opposite party did not
plead that, the vacancy caused due to discontinuation of 1st complainant was
not filled by them, nor did the opposite party file any documents viz.
admission register etc., to show that the vacancy was not filled up and no
admission was given to any new student. In the absence of the same, this
Commission is unable to accept the contention of the opposite party, that
the vacancy caused due to discontinuation of coaching by 1st complainant
cannot be filled by giving admission to a new student.
The other contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is
not a consumer and there is no deficiency of service etc., are also not
tenable in view of the judgement of the “Hon’ble National Commission in
Fiit Jee Ltd., vs. Dr.Minathi Rath reported in 2012 CPJ (NC) 194”
wherein it was held that,
 7

14. So far as the first issue is concerned, even though in a very narrow
technical sense, for reasons pointed out by the counsel for petitioner in
his oral submissions, coaching institutions may not be conventional
education institutions, but since they provide coaching and training to
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 the service
providers. Petitioners are rendering service for consideration and fall
within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment
of the Supreme Court would, thus override any bilateral agreement
between the parties. We are, therefore, of the considered view that
respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble 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 cases, since petitioner/Institute do not follow the
semester system, they could only have 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.

15. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that these cases do not
fall within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
because these complaints have not been made on the ground of
deficiency in service before the District Forum, we find that this
contention is not sustainable. In the first place, the complaints were
made on specific grounds of deficiency in service before the District
Forum and secondly as stated in the above para, as per Section
2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Respondents are
consumers who sought to avail of services for a consideration and the
petitioner/institute is very much a provider of these services and thus
these cases are consumer disputes within the meaning of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
 8

Therefore, this Forum holds that there is deficiency of service on the

part of the opposite parties and accordingly this point is answered in favour
of the complainants and against the opposite party.

11. POINT No.4:- Admittedly, the 1st complainant paid an amount of

Rs.1,51,000/- to the opposite party as per Ex.B-2 receipt. Out of the said
amount of Rs.1,51,000/- an amount of Rs.1,31,304/- was adjusted towards
tuition fee and remaining amount was adjusted towards service tax and
other cess. Ex.A-4 clearly reveals that the 2nd complainant obtained
personal loan against his pension on 18-08-2016 from Andhra Bank, Guntur
and the same was paid to opposite party through demand draft obtained
from the said bank. The 1st complainant admittedly attended the classes for
34 days only out of 253 days. The 1st complainant also received the study
material from the opposite party and also availed the facility of online
resources provided by the opposite party. Therefore, in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Commission feels, it just and proper to
direct the opposite party to refund 50% of tuition fee i.e., Rs.66,652/- with
interest @9% p.a., from 10-09-2016 till the date of realization, to the
complainants.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as follows:

1. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.65,652/- (Rupees

sixty five thousand, six hundred and fifty two only) with
interest @9% p.a., from 10-09-2016 till the date of
realization, to the complainants;
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two
thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, to the
complainants.
3. The opposite party is directed to comply with the above order
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected by me, and

pronounced in the open Commission, dated this the 25th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For complainant: Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy – PW1

For opposite party: Sri Arjun Ravindran - DW1

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:

Ex. DATE DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS

Nos.
- Case history of the mother of the 1st complainant for the
A1
period from 24-06-2016 to 18-02-2017
02-05-2016 Photo-copy of the course completion certificate of the 1st
A2
complainant issued by Annamalai University
A3 10-09-2016 Photo-copy of the fee receipt issued by opposite party
18-08-2016 Photo-copy of the loan sanction letter issued by Andhra
A4
Bank, Guntur
25-10-2016 Copy of the letter addressed by the 2nd complainant to the
A5
opposite party
19-11-2016 Office-copy of legal notice got issued on behalf of 2nd
A6
complainant to opposite party.
A7 - Photo-copy of the postal receipt
A8 - Copy of the courier track consignment

For opposite party:

Ex. DATE DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS

Nos.
B1 10-09-2016 Photo-copy of the application form of the 1st complainant
B2 10-09-2016 Photo-copy of the fee receipt

Sd/-XXX
PRESIDENT