Coaching class ordered to refund Rs77k to student
Vaibhav Ganjapure | TNN | Jan 30, 2019, 02:46 ISTNagpur: Coming to an aggrieved student’s rescue, the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed ICAD-CET, a popular coaching institute for engineering and medical entrance examinations, to refund Rs77,200 to him for allegedly adopting “unethical practices” and “deficiency in services”.
The Tilak Nagar-based institute was further asked to pay the entire amount with 12% interest from May 10, 2016, within 30 days.
A bench comprising president Shekhar Muley, and members — Avinash Prabhune and Dipti Bobade — also slapped a cost of Rs30,000 on ICAD directors towards physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant and also for litigation expenses. The directors included Anil Kayande, Dilip Vaidya, Sarang Upganlawar and Manish, branch officer at Hanuman Nagar.
Lured by advertisements floated in newspapers and hoardings erected in many parts of the city, Mohammed Wasif Raza Mohammed Younus had joined ICAD on April 28, 2016, to prepare for Joint Entrance Examination (JEE- Advanced 2016-18 batch). The total fee was Rs1.75 lakh, of which he paid Rs77,200 through cash and cheque.
The ICAD office-bearers verbally assured Younus of imparting coaching as per CBSE and Maharashtra State Board patterns and had even mentioned about it in its advertisements. However, it didn’t start the batch for state board students and continued with the CBSE batch.
The student attended the classes for 20 days in May 2016, but was unable to understand anything due to his state board background and different (CBSE) syllabus. Despite repeated requests, ICAD didn’t start coaching as per state board pattern. Younus’s father wrote a letter to the directors on July 12, 2016, for either starting the coaching as per state board or refund their hard-earned money. When no response came, Younus left the classes midway.
When ICAD directors agreed to refund only Rs10,000, Younus’s father issued a legal notice on July 22, 2016. As no response came from the ICAD, the father-son duo moved the forum. The judges dispatched a notice to the ICAD, but it was returned with remarks of “not claimed”. Later, the forum issued an advertisement in print media, yet ICAD directors failed to respond. Finally, the case was heard in the absence of opposite side.
The judges observed that ICAD should have started separate classes for state board students as was assured in its advertisements. They also noted that if ICAD was unable to start separate class, it should have refunded the amount after deducting fees for 20 days which the complainant student had attended.
“Since the opposite party floated advertisements, but failed to fulfil assurances, it amounts to “deficiency in service” and “adoption of unethical practices” as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ICAD also failed to respond to the forum’s notice and media advertisement which show their complete apathy towards consumer laws,” the judges stated.
What the Forum Said
* ICAD should have started separate classes for state board students
* The institute floated advertisements in media, but failed to fulfil assurances
* It amounts to deficiency in service & adoption of unethical practices
* ICAD failed to respond to forum’s notice and media advertisement
* This shows ICAD’s apathy towards consumer laws and it also failed to show courtesy
The Tilak Nagar-based institute was further asked to pay the entire amount with 12% interest from May 10, 2016, within 30 days.
A bench comprising president Shekhar Muley, and members — Avinash Prabhune and Dipti Bobade — also slapped a cost of Rs30,000 on ICAD directors towards physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant and also for litigation expenses. The directors included Anil Kayande, Dilip Vaidya, Sarang Upganlawar and Manish, branch officer at Hanuman Nagar.
Lured by advertisements floated in newspapers and hoardings erected in many parts of the city, Mohammed Wasif Raza Mohammed Younus had joined ICAD on April 28, 2016, to prepare for Joint Entrance Examination (JEE- Advanced 2016-18 batch). The total fee was Rs1.75 lakh, of which he paid Rs77,200 through cash and cheque.
The ICAD office-bearers verbally assured Younus of imparting coaching as per CBSE and Maharashtra State Board patterns and had even mentioned about it in its advertisements. However, it didn’t start the batch for state board students and continued with the CBSE batch.
The student attended the classes for 20 days in May 2016, but was unable to understand anything due to his state board background and different (CBSE) syllabus. Despite repeated requests, ICAD didn’t start coaching as per state board pattern. Younus’s father wrote a letter to the directors on July 12, 2016, for either starting the coaching as per state board or refund their hard-earned money. When no response came, Younus left the classes midway.
When ICAD directors agreed to refund only Rs10,000, Younus’s father issued a legal notice on July 22, 2016. As no response came from the ICAD, the father-son duo moved the forum. The judges dispatched a notice to the ICAD, but it was returned with remarks of “not claimed”. Later, the forum issued an advertisement in print media, yet ICAD directors failed to respond. Finally, the case was heard in the absence of opposite side.
The judges observed that ICAD should have started separate classes for state board students as was assured in its advertisements. They also noted that if ICAD was unable to start separate class, it should have refunded the amount after deducting fees for 20 days which the complainant student had attended.
“Since the opposite party floated advertisements, but failed to fulfil assurances, it amounts to “deficiency in service” and “adoption of unethical practices” as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ICAD also failed to respond to the forum’s notice and media advertisement which show their complete apathy towards consumer laws,” the judges stated.
What the Forum Said
* ICAD should have started separate classes for state board students
* The institute floated advertisements in media, but failed to fulfil assurances
* It amounts to deficiency in service & adoption of unethical practices
* ICAD failed to respond to forum’s notice and media advertisement
* This shows ICAD’s apathy towards consumer laws and it also failed to show courtesy
more from times of india Cities
LATEST VIDEOS
All Comments ()+^ Back to Top
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.
HIDE