1. THE complaint of the petitioner was dismissed by the District Forum and the order of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission, through a cryptic order. The facts of this case are these.
2. MANAN Yadav, the complainant, approached Vinod Menon, OP, Proprietor, "The Commerce Institute ", Udaipur, Rajasthan, for 11th Class Coaching and informed him that he had failed in 10th Standard and had presented the application for re-totalling. He also told him that if he cleared in re-totalling, then he will continue the coaching and otherwise respondent assured him to refund the fee. The fee was paid on 6.8.2010 in the sum of Rs. 3,500. The complainant was declared ''failed '' in the result of re-totalling, dated 5.9.2010. Thereafter, the complainant stopped taking coaching and asked the OP to refund the fee. The money was not refunded. A legal notice was served through the Advocate of the complainant on 1.10.2010 to OP. The OP/respondent took the notice and denied all the allegations.
A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed before the District Forum which was dismissed vide order dated 26.9.2011. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the State Commission, on 24.2.2012.
3. WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the orders passed by the Fora below are illegal. The coaching normally starts after primary talks with student ''s qualification. As the student had failed, therefore, his money should have been returned.
4. THESE arguments lack conviction. The order of the District Forum clearly mentions that the petitioner had taken coaching classes from 21.7.2010 up to 20.9.2010. The petitioner himself mentions that the coaching classes started from August, 2010 and the OP used to take 3 days coaching within a week, i.e. one day after another. On 6.9.2010, the petitioner asked for refund of money. The petitioner himself admits in his complaint that when the receipt was given to him in respect of Rs. 3,500, it was written, at the foot of the receipt ''once fee paid is not refundable ''. There is no evidence of any oral discussion as alleged. It is a settled law that once the coaching starts, and the student attends the class, one cannot claim the money for that very year or semester. The revision petition is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. It is the case of a student, therefore, we refrain from imposing costs upon the petitioner. Revision Petition dismissed.
