STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 1008 of 2013
AGAINST
CC No. 69 of 2011, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between :
Master Sohan Gon
s/o Subhojit Gon, aged about 5 years,
rep. by his Natural Guardian Father
Subhojit Gon, S/o S.B. Gon
Aged about 39 years, Occ : Pvt. Employee
R/o D.1704, Aparna Sarovar Nallagandla,
Near Lingampally Railway Station,
Hyderabad – 500 046 .. Appellant/complainant
And
- Kangaroo Kids Education Ltd
Rep. by its Principal,
55, Vittal Rao nagar,
Beside Aliens Corporate Office,
Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081.
- Kangaroo Kids Education Ltd
Rep. by its Chair Person,
11, new Jagruti Co-op Housing Society Ltd
2nd Floor, 227, S.V. Road,
Bandara (W), Mumbai – 500 050. .. Respondents/Ops.
Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. K. Pallavi.
Counsel for the Respondents : R1-served
M/s. K. Visweswara Reddy for R-2.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Twenty Sixth Day of April
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 made in CC 69 of 2011 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he admitted his son aged about 2 years 9 months in the first opposite party school on 20.11.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.24,800/- towards fee. On the first day of the school, he and his wife were waiting in the down stairs, they heard the loud crying of the child and went to upstairs and observed that their son was locked in a room with a maid with a view to prevent him forcefully to go out and hence he refused to go to school. The child started returning home with injuries most of which were long nail scratches across his face and neck and when enquired they were informed that those injuries wee caused by another boy. On 25.01.2011, he and his wife noticed that their boy was crying out loudly and they noticed that his left hand was swollen up and he had a blood clot and he was in lot of pain and his nose was deeply scratched. They brought the matter to the notice of the school principal. On 27.01.2011, he took his son to the hospital to a pediatric and orthopedic doctor who diagnosed that the boy was hit with a heavy blunt object and suggested to take x-ray. Since then the boy was suffering from a lot of pain and shocked and refused to go to school. The same was brought to the notice of the second opposite party on 25.01.2011, who, responded on 26.01.2011 with an assurance that he will make enquiry and a meeting was held on the same day. He was informed that his son had walked out of the class without the knowledge of the teachers and when he came back nobody noticed the injury and he was informed that the body got injuries by falling down on something. They handed over a cheque of Rs.13,000/- as refund of school admission owning responsibility for the incident. He also recorded the conversation with the opposite parties. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pass severe strictures against the opposite parties, to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for the mental agony and harassment, to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and costs of Rs.50,000/-.
4). The 1st opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while accepting that his son was admitted in their school after paying the requisite fee on 20.11.2010, but, insisted to stay in the school premises after leaving the boy into the class room and hence the parents of the body were requested to wait in the abutting building which is away from the class room. The class rooms are fully covered with glass as they are provided with air conditioner and hence the question of hearing the crying of child by his father is a blatant lie. The father of the child informed them that his son was unable to attend all the classes as he needs rest. The boy resumed coming to the school in January, 2011 and there was no trouble as alleged in the complaint. The prescriptions of the boy revealed that he was taken to Rainbow Hospital and treated as an out patient at 4.44 PM on 25.01.201 during the working hours of the school are in between 11.10 Noon to 1.10 PM. Hence the injury was not caused to the child in the school premises, but elsewhere. Hence the question of first aid does not arise. Their enquiry revealed that no such incidents were occurred in the school premises and hence no action was taken against the staff members. To avoid nuisance and to keep up the reputation of their institution, a sum of Rs.13,000/- was paid back to the father of the child who received the same without any protest and unconditionally. They never admitted any guilt as claimed by the father of the child. The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant did not take any permission from the Court to sue on behalf of the child. There is no deficiency in service on their Part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The second opposite party in their written version contended that there is no privity of contract with the complainant nor availed any services. The first opposite party is neither the branch school nor agent or partner of second opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer. The allegations leveled against OP no. 1 and hence second opposite party is not responsible for the same. Mr. Ijlal, Senior Manger of second opposite party, never agreed their negligence. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6). During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. The Principal of the first opposite party field her Evidence Affidavit. The Manager of the second opposite party filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B8. Complainant and second opposite party filed their respective written arguments. Heard.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation along with costs of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days.
8) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
9). Heard the counsel for the appellant and the second respondent and they also filed their respective written arguments. No representation for the 1st respondent/first opposite party despite service of notice.
10) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
11). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the son of the appellant/complainant was admitted in the first respondent/first opposite party school by paying requisite fee. There is also no dispute that on the first day of the admission of the boy, his parents were present at the school premises. There is also no dispute that the son of the appellant/complainant returned home with injuries. There is no dispute that the first respondent/first opposite party returned an amount of Rs.13,000/- towards school fee.
12). The first contention of the appellant/complainant is that his son was locked in a room with a maid on the very first day and due to which his son refused to go to school and despite complaint no action was taken. On the other hand, the first respondent/opposite party Principal rebutted that no such incident had happened and since the class rooms were air conditioned, there is no scope to hear the cries of the boy. It is their duty to protect the boy from going outside the class room for his safety.
13). The second contention is that his son returned home with injuries, most of which, are nail scratches across his face and neck and in support of his contention he relied on Ex. A8 photos, which, show scratches on his nose and on right arm. On the other hand, the first opposite party rebutted the same contending that the prescriptions of the boy revealed that he was taken to Rainbow Hospital and treated as an out patient at 4.44 PM on 25.01.201 during the working hours of the school in between 11.10 Noon to 1.10 PM and hence the injury was not caused to the child in the school premises, but elsewhere.
14). The District Forum observed that the boy was treated only for two days as an out patient and no grievous injuries were caused to him and no medical bills were filed in support of their contention and there is no medical certificate said to have been issued that the boy had received the injuries with any blunt object.
15). Perusal of the record shows that meetings were held in between the parties and the respondents Institution assured that they will take necessary action against the offenders, but, in their enquiry they found no such incident had occurred and hence no action was taken against anybody.. The respondents Institution contended that the injuries to the boy was not caused in the school premises but elsewhere which shows that there is no dispute that the son of the appellant/complainant got injuries and further it cannot be said that the injuries were caused out side the school premises because on that day, i.e., on 25.01.2011 the boy admittedly attended the school and he was brought to the hospital during the evening hours. Keeping in view, the respondents’ Institution has refunded admission fee amount of Rs.13,000/- back to the father of the boy.. The District Forum attributed deficiency in service on the part of the first respondent/1st opposite party. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the second respondent/second opposite party immediately after bringing the incident to their notice, he assured that he will conduct an enquiry and also conducted enquiry and he has done his obligation. There is no medical certificate on record to prove that the son of the appellant/complainant sustained grievous injuries and vide Ex.A6 to A8 show minor injuries. If there are any major injuries, the father of the boy might have resorted to give police complaint but he did not do so. Further, admission fee was refunded. Slapping of a child by the teacher is not an offence, if, it is ordained to discipline a child whenever necessary. The parents should not take it as serious. Otherwise, it is not possible to run the schools and impart education to the children as desired. No teacher would think to slap any student who is obedient in his school as well as in his studies. However, in the present case, it appears the incident had occurred and the same reached the hospital, probably, it may be by a mischievous boy because there are long nail scratches across his face and neck as alleged by his father. No teacher would resort such type of act with nails. Even if we assume that the teacher slapped the boy, she will do the same probably with a stick, but, not with nails as alleged to keep the boy with discipline. Now the appeal was filed for enhancement of compensation amount. The appellant did not file any medical receipts incurred by him for his son in support of his claim. We do not find merits in the impugned order.
16. After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
17. Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 in C C 69 of 2011 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four week.s
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 26. 04.2018.
