serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practices
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
Complaint Case No. CC/22/365
( Date of Filing : 02 Aug 2022 )
1. ZEBA SALIM
PUTHIZAREETTIL HOUSE, MURIYAMTHODU P.O,
VALAPAD, TRISSUR ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. VLCC HEALTHCARE LTD.
SECTOR-18, MARUTI INDUSTRIAL AREA, GURGAON,
HARYANA INDIA 120015 ............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. D.B BINU PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. RAMACHANDRAN .V MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. SREEVIDHIA T.N MEMBER
PRESENT:
Dated : 15 Nov 2023
Final Order / Judgement
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of November,
2023.
Filed on: 02/08/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N
Member
C.C. No. 365/2022
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts,
as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant was a former student at VLCC Institute,
Kochi, known for weight loss and beauty solutions. The complainant enrolled in a course on
18.01.2021, paying a total of Rs. 1,17,329/ in fees. Later, on 09.03.2021, the complainant
enrolled in another course, paying a total of Rs. 1,62,000/ as fees. Due to COVID-19, the
complainant couldn't attend physical classes but attended online. When the institution closed due
to the pandemic, the complainant decided to cancel her admission due to delays in classes and
her weak health.
She requested a refund from the institution but faced delays and false information. The
institution offered alternatives, but the complainant refused due to incomplete classes within the
prescribed time. The complainant alleges unfair trade practices, seeks a refund of Rs. 2,79,329/,
Rs. 2,00,000/ as compensation for mental agony, and the entire cost of proceedings.
Regarding these issues:
The complainant canceled all three courses due to the opposite party's failure to provide
classes as promised, both in the physical and online formats.
The suggestion made by the opposite party to adjust the course fees against the enrollment
of a relative or sibling is deemed unfair and illegal. Additionally, it is established that fees,
once paid, are not refundable, which is deemed unconscionable and voidable.
The precedent set in the case of Flit Jee Ltd. v/s Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath & Others by
the Hon'ble NCDRC establishes that coaching institutions providing educational services
for consideration fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It was ruled that
fees once paid could be refunded after deducting non-refundable service charges for the
unattended portion of the course.
There is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for failing to
provide timely classes, even though online mode.
In light of these facts, evidence, and legal precedents, the complainant seeks a refund of fees
based on her withdrawal of admission and compensation as requested.
....
The opposite parties conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the
Commissions notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against
them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have
no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The
Honble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page
590 (NC).
...
Whether the opposite parties come under the purview of the consumer commission?
In the case of PRINCIPLE, L.D.R.P. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
versus APOORV SHARMA (REVISION PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2019), the Hon'ble
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) made the following
observation:
45. We are of the considered view that conduction of Coaching Classes does not fall
within the ambit of definition of 'Education' as defined by the Hon'ble Seven Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (Supra). Coaching Centres cannot be
equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and
also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations
conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute and also by the concerned
Universities. Therefore, strictly speaking Coaching Centres cannot fall within the
definition of 'Educational Institutions'. We refrain from making any comments on the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the Complainants with respect of Coaching
Institutions indulging only in 'rote learning'.
46. For all the afore-noted reasons, we are of the opinion that any defect or deficiency or
unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like 'Coaching Centres' does fall
within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.
It's obvious that the beauty coaching institute in question, which runs on its own without any
control from a university or particular educational rules, is indeed a type of coaching center.
Therefore, it comes under the jurisdiction of this commission.
B. Deficiency in Service: The complainant enrolled in courses offered by the opposite parties
with a legitimate expectation of receiving quality Coaching. However, the opposite parties
failed to deliver on their promise by not conducting the courses as per the agreed terms.
This failure amounts to a deficiency in service, as established by the evidence and the
complainant's unchallenged assertions.
C. Unfair Trade Practices: The opposite parties' suggestion to adjust the course fees against
the enrolment of a relative or sibling is not only unfair but also contrary to consumer
protection principles. Fees paid by the complainant should not be rendered non-refundable
in such a manner. Such practices are deemed unconscionable and voidable, as highlighted
by legal precedents.
D. Precedent: The decision in the case of Flit Jee Ltd. v/s Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath &
Others by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
establishes that educational institutions providing services for consideration fall under the
purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In that case, it was held that fees once paid could
be refunded after deducting non-refundable service charges for the unattended portion of
the course.
12/6/23, 5:58 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry
about:blank 6/9
E. Ex-parte Proceedings: The opposite parties' failure to participate in the proceedings and
file a written version indicates their inability to contest the allegations leveled against
them. As a result, the complainant's claims remain uncontested and credible.
In the case of Flit Jee Ltd, & Others v/s Dr. (Mrs.) Minathi Rath & Others, on 14
November, 2011, the Honb'e NCDRC further held that:
Coaching institutions may not be conventional educational 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
judgment 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/Institutes 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 nonrefundable service tax for the unattended second year of the G course. 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
grounds 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.
In the field of education, while many coaching institutions offer valuable services to
prepare students for higher education, there unfortunately exists a presence of unscrupulous
coaching institutions engaging in unethical practices, exploiting students and their families.
These institutions should not have the right to retain the fees of students who choose to leave a
course midway due to dissatisfaction with the services provided. It is essential to ensure fairness
and prevent these institutions from imposing unfair terms and conditions. Protecting consumers,
particularly in the education sector, is of utmost importance to guarantee that students and
parents are treated with the respect and honesty they deserve.
We found that the issues numbered (I) to (IV) are in favour of the complainant due to the serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant has suffered a great deal of inconvenience, mental anguish, hardships, and financial loss, etc., as a result of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
I. The Opposite Parties shall refund Rs.2,79,329/- (Rupees two lakh seventy nine thousand three hundred twenty nine only) to the complainant being the course fees paid by the complainant.
II. The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience, physical hardships, and deficiency in service caused by their actions and Unfair Trade Practices.
III. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties shall be held jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned directives. These directives must be adhered to by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date they receive a copy of this order. Failure to comply with the directives outlined in (i) and (ii) above will result in the accrual of interest at a rate of 9%, starting from the date of the filing of this complaint on 02.18.2022, until the amount is fully realized.