Delhi State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable for Deficiency in Service (Consumer Case)
The complainant enrolled her daughter in a two-year FIITJEE program, paying the full fee upfront. After her daughter switched to a commerce stream post-Class X exam, the complainant requested a fee refund. FIITJEE initially agreed to consider the refund upon receipt of a certificate confirming the stream change, but after submitting the certificate, FIITJEE did not process the refund.
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering a refund of RS. 56,000 with 6% interest and RS. 5,000 in litigation costs, while allowing FIITJEE to retain the balance for service tax and other expenses. Dissatisfied, FIITJEE appealed to the State Commission of Delhi. The State Commission noted that FIITJEE failed to provide evidence that it had filled the vacancy left by the complainant’s daughter after her withdrawal. Despite the withdrawal occurring after one month and ten days, FIITJEE did not substantiate its claim that the seat remained vacant for the full two-year period.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003), the Commission emphasized that fees collected in advance should only cover the current semester, with any remaining amount invested in fixed deposits and interest returned to the student. FIITJEE had not compiled with these guidelines, prompting the Commission to dismiss the appeal and uphold the District Commission’s decision, ordering a refund to the complainant.
Source: – Live Law
By: – Rajat Ranjan
