The contention of the complainant/respondent is that the OP recovered from him a sum of Rs.1,85,957/- for two years course. The Fee Plan, however, shows that the fees was to be recovered in eight installments. The conduct of the OP/appellant in collecting the fee in advance amounts to unfair trade practice. In the case Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (6) SCC 697, the Honble Supreme Court held that an educational institution could only charge the prescribed fee for one semester/year and not for the entire course. On its basis, the Honble National Commission in the case Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma (Supra) held as follows: -
The principles laid down by the Apex Court would apply with equal force to the training institutes who collect fees in advance, though not due, in order to prepare the students for various examinations. Charging fees in advance beyond the current semester/year would certainly amount to unfair trade practice and the same cannot be countenanced In the case Atam Parkash Khattar Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009 decided on 21.7.2010 by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was observed that educational institutions cannot be permitted to behave like a business establishment who work with profit motive.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manmeet vs Fiitjee on 24 March, 2011
PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.
