F.A. No. 132 of 2013. Case: FIITJEE Limited and Ors. Vs Dupaguntla Vaishnavi. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberF.A. No. 132 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: R. Mahendra, Advocate and For Respondents: K. Visweswara Rao, Advocate
JudgesR. Lakshminarasimha Rao and Thota Ashok Kumar, Members
IssueConsumer Law
CitationI (2014) CPJ 301 (AP)
Judgement DateFebruary 19, 2014
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member

1. The opposite parties are the appellants. The respondent has joined in course Pinnacle-II-Jee of XI class programme for the academic years 2010-2012 conducted by the appellants and the appellants collected a sum of Rs. 1,98,154 in six installments commencing from 24.2.2010. The classes were commenced on 10.6.2010 and the respondent attended the classes regularly. The respondent was not satisfied with the standard of faculty and the facilities provided by the appellants. Subsequently the respondent was transferred to Dilsukhnagar branch on payment of fees Rs. 8,273 and there also the faculty and facilities were substandard. After attending few classes, the respondent was forced to leave the institution and joined elsewhere. The respondent scored 10 CGPA in 10th CBSE and the appellants failed to pay the scholarship. The respondent requested the appellants to refund the fees paid by her. The appellants rejected her request taking shelter under the declaration of the enrolment form disentitling her claim for refund of fees. The respondent got issued notice dated 5.10.2010 and when there was no reply, she filed the complaint before the District Forum. The appellants resisted the case contending that the institution of the appellants is a premier educational institute providing quality education recruit faculty members through the stringent selection process. The institute being self-financed and self-managed survives on fees collected from the students in advance. The total fees charged includes taxes as applicable and cost of study material supply to the students. The complaint is barred by the arbitration agreement as per Para 13 of the declaration and enrolment form. Paras. 6, 7, 12 and 17 of the enrolment form clearly indicate the unconditional and free consent of the parent and the respondent. The respondent includes Rs. 17,000 towards admission fee, Rs. 6,000 towards examination fee; Rs. 14,781 towards service tax and a sum of Rs. 24,000 towards study material. The respondent herself has requested the appellants to transfer her from the appellant No. 1 to appellant No. 2 due to some personal reasons.

2. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, Exs. A1 to A8. On behalf of the appellants, the Sr. Manager-HRD and the Mentor and Director of the appellants filed their affidavits and the documents, Exs. B1 to B3.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellants to pay...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT