West Delhi District Commission Directs Rao IIT Academy To Refund Fee To Student Who Couldn't Attend Classes Due To Transfer
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) held Rao IIT Academy liable for refunding the fee to the Complainant, whose daughter did not attend one single class due to the Complainant's transfer. The District Commission noted that despite having...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) held Rao IIT Academy liable for refunding the fee to the Complainant, whose daughter did not attend one single class due to the Complainant's transfer. The District Commission noted that despite having no express agreement between the coaching institute and the Complainant, the coaching institute was liable to refund the fee.
Brief Facts:
Mr. Kulwant Singh's (“Complainant”) daughter was admitted to Rao IIT Academy (“Academy”) when he was unemployed and actively seeking suitable employment. Upon securing a job in Punjab, he and his family decided to relocate. During the orientation of the academy, the Complainant verbally communicated to Mr. Rahul Wadhwan, the Centre Head of the academy, his intention to withdraw his daughter from the academy. Despite assurances from Mr. Rahul, there was no response to the Complainant's request after numerous attempts through calls and messages. Later, the Complainant received five books and a bag from the academy during orientation, which were returned on May 1, 2019, after Mr Rahul informed him to do so when the refund cheque would be ready.
Additionally, the Complainant made several communications with the academy but he didn't receive a satisfactory response from him. He explicitly informed the academy not to present two cheques for encashment but the academy presented them for encashment which were bounced and the Complainant was charged Rs. 177/- for that. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi, Delhi (“District Commission”).
The Complainant argued that his daughter never attended a single coaching class. Further, he returned the provided books and bag to the academy. Despite this, the academy failed to address his pleas even after continuous calls and emails. He was deeply troubled by the perceived indifference of the academy. On the other hand, the academy didn't appear before the District Commission. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission observed that no agreement was signed by the Complainant with the academy for his daughter's admission. At the same time, she did not attend any classes due to the Complainant's relocation to Punjab. Further, no receipt for the paid amount of Rs. 17,000/- was issued by the academy.
The District Commission further held that despite no express agreement between the academy and the Complainant, the academy cannot deny a refund since the Complainant didn't avail of the services provided by his daughter. Therefore, it held that the academy, being a service provider, cannot forfeit fees for services which are not availed by the consumers.
The District Commission held the academy liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Subsequently, the District Commission directed the academy to refund Rs. 17,177/- (fee and penalty for cheque-bouncing) along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint until final realization. Additionally, the academy was instructed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Case Title: Kulwant Singh vs Rao IIT Academy
Case No.: Case No. 91/2020
Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant-in-person
Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte)
Click Here To Read/Download Order