The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Sehegal School of Competition

v. Dalbir Singh
APO 2:
The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Facts – Part 1
The respondent (Dalbir Singh) had taken admission at the appellant’s institute for a period
of 2 years.

Respondent in this case, paid lump-sum - 18734 - fees for two years within the first 6
months to a medical coaching center. 

The respondent left the course mid-way on account of deficiency in the services and asked
for a refund. 

The respondent filed a complaint before the district forum for relief.

The district forum directed the appellant to refund part of the fees of Rs. 18,734.
The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Facts – Part 2

Aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission the appellant filed a revision
petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Contentions by the appellant

There wasn’t any deficiency in service. Further submitted that the school had shown
Respondent had withdrawn from the institute excellent results.
voluntarily.

Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, One of the conditions imposed by the school
Chandigarh v. Miss Gunita Virk* ‘refundability/transferability of seat/fee is not
possible under any circumstances.’

*Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act would have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any
institution as unconscionable or illegal.
 The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Judgment

The court stated that the appellant’s condition about non-refundability was biased
and in favor of the petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice.
It further stated that it was not a fair-trade practice.

The petition was dismissed and the court pronounced its judgment in favor of the respondent. The
additional compensation for mental agony due to approaching legal forum was not granted as the same
was not mentioned in the petition. The court held that there shall be no order relating to cost and the
school was required to refund the amount to the respondent.
The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Reasoning
In the subsequent judgments it has been held
It stated that the case law referred by
that it is unjust to collect the fees for the total
the petitioner was 13 years old.
duration of the course. 

• The court relied on the judgment of Nipun Nagar vs. Symbiosis Institute of International
Business, where it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs. 1
lakh even after the student withdrew from their institute.

“Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the
State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to cost.”
The Case Facts Contentions Judgment Reasoning Learnings

Lessons/Understandings from the case 

Charging lump sum fees for the whole duration by an institute offering a service is
unconscionable and unfair

If there is deficiency in service i.e. in the quality of coaching, any clause saying that
fees once paid shall not be refunded is not enforceable.

This is applicable on the part of the fees for the service that has not been availed.

That is, the fees that is for further coaching is refundable.

Thank you