Today in New Delhi, India
May 26, 2019-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

FIIT JEE 2018 case: FIIT JEE directed to refund students’ fee

In the first case, the opposition party was directed to refund ₹48,918 to the complainant and pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation charges each.

education Updated: Apr 11, 2019 11:47 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times, Chandigarh
FIIT JEE,FIIT JEE 2018,FIIT JEE to refund fee
The state consumer disputes redressal commission directed to refund the fee of complainants, which was illegally charged from them for unattended period of the course, besides compensation and litigation charges.(Saumya Khandelwal/HT Photo)

The state consumer disputes redressal commission via a common order disposed of three appeals filed in 2018 by FIIT JEE and directed it to refund the fee to the students who left the course.

The forum directed to refund the fee of complainants, which was illegally charged from them for unattended period of the course, besides compensation and litigation charges.

In the first case, the opposition party was directed to refund ₹48,918 to the complainant and pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation charges each.

In the second complaint, the opposition party was directed to refund the balance fee ₹1.2 lakh with 12% interest from the date of filing complaint. They were also directed to pay ₹10,000 as litigation cost and ₹25,000 for harassment.

In the third case, the forum directed to pay a compensation of ₹15, 000 to the complainant for deficiency in service. Despite instructions to stop payment, they negligently cleared two cheques in favour of OP-3 (FIIT JEE), it was stated.

The OP-3, was directed to refund ₹40,933 fee they illegally charged. It was also directed to pay ₹40,000 as compensation for unfair trade practices and mental agony, harassment caused to complainant and ₹20,000 litigation cost.

Counsel of the appellant Mukesh Goel argued that complainants are not entitled to refund. He said that education is not a commodity and educational institutes are not providing any kind of service, therefore there is no question of deficiency of service.

However, the forum mentioned that the appellant cannot be allowed an advantageous position, keeping in mind the interest of poor consumer.

“When a student signs the admissions form, they have no bargaining power to negotiate or refuse to sign the particular clause, hence such clauses should not be held against student,” the forum stated.

First Published: Apr 11, 2019 11:47 IST