Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/88/2019

Sudarshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aastha Education Society - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Dhatarwal

21 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                             Sh.Rajbir singh, President                                                                         Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

    

                                                Consumer Complaint No.  88 of 2019.                                                                  Date of Institution           :   08.02.2019.

                                                Date of Decision            :   21.08.2023

 

Sudarshan son of Shri Shishpal resident of village Bhuthan Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                   …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Aastha Education Society, Satish Colony, Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its President.

2.Apex Convent School, Satish Colony, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Principal

 

                                                                   …Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                 Sh.Rajesh Kumar Dhatarwal, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.Saneev Mehta, Advocate for Ops.

                            

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                            

1.                          This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short Act) against the OPs with the averments, inter-alia, that the Ops had distributed the pamphlets regarding affiliation of Apex Convent School with ICSE Pattern; that on believing the information and representation of the Ops, the complainant got his two sons admitted in LKG and pre-Nursery;  that the sons of the complainant kept on studying in Apex Convent School (OP No.2) and regarding this he  kept on making the payment of fees and other expenses as demanded by Ops regularly; that Ops had also issued the certificates, “mentioning therein that ICSE Pattern” to the sons of the complainant on completion of their respective classes;  that on 27.03.2017 the complainant came to know that the Op no.2 had never been affiliated with ICSE pattern but despite that they had been charging the fees and other expenses on the name of ICSE pattern for a longer period; that the complainant visited the Ops and requested for showing the affiliation granting certificate/approval certificate but they failed to give satisfactory reply; that on 27.03.2017, the complainant moved an application to Block Education Officer, Fatehabad for conducting an inquiry; that during enquiry,  vide order dated 12.08.2017, it was found by the concerned authorities  that the Ops had committed fraud as Op No.2 was not affiliated with ICSE, therefore, the complainant was entitled for getting his fee , deposited with the Ops, back from the Ops; that due to fraud committed by the Ops the future of the children of the complainant got spoiled. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and Mark 1 and Mark 2.

2.                          Upon notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint reply whereby several preliminary objections such as locus standi, estoppal, jurisdiction cause of action and complaint being false and frivolous have been taken. It has been further submitted that no pamphlets regarding affiliation of Apex Convent School with the ICSE Pattern were distributed rather the OP No.2 is running school by following the ICSE pattern and never published that the Op No.2 is affiliated with ICSE pattern; that the certificates to the sons of the complainant have also been issued by adopting the pattern of ICSE; that at the time of admission, it was made clear to the complainant regarding following/adopting of ICSE pattern as well as for charging admission fees, school fee, transport fee, library fee etc.  according to this and even it was further clarified to him that the Op No.2 is not affiliated with ICSE; that question of committing fraud with the complainant does not arise at all as all the contents were duly explained to the complainant; that the enquiry of BEO is wrong and not binding on the Ops and the complainant is not entitled for getting the fee, so deposited by him, back. Other contents made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Anshul Kumar, as Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R7.

4.                          We have heard final arguments from both sides and have gone through the case file minutely.

5.                          The complainant by way of this complaint has alleged that the Op No.2 had never been affiliated with ICSE but despite that they kept on charging school fee, admission fee and other expenses by representing Op No.2 as affiliated with ICSE. In support of his arguments he drew the attention of this Commission towards the order dated 12.08.2017 (Ex.C25) and submitted that the concerned authorities after due enquiry had opined that the OP No.2 had committed the violation of rules and regulations by mentioning ICSE pattern on report card of the students and the complainant was also held entitled for getting his fee back from the Ops.

6.                          Per contra, it has been argued by learned counsel for the Ops that at the time of admission it was made clear to the complainant that the school is not affiliated with ICSE rather the pattern of ICSE is being adopted/following and after being agreed, the complainant got his sons admitted in Op nO.2/school with his sweet will, therefore, question of deficiency and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has further argued that the order dated 12.08.2017 (Ex.C25) passed by BEO, Fatehabad is not binding on the Ops as the present enquiry was not related to the present complaint and further the order dated 12.08.2017 has already been declared null and void by the District Elementary Education Officer, Fatehabad vide order No.E-1-22/44324-26 dated 29.08.2022/ 14.07.2022 and further produced this document before this Commission during the course of arguments as Mark-3.

7.                          The fact regarding studying of sons of the complainant in OP No.2/school is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant had also paid school fee/admission fee and other expenses to the Ops and certificates regarding completion of respective years by the students have also been issued by the Ops to them.

8.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he got his two sons admitted in Apex Convent School/OP No.2 in the year 2012 and they remained the same school till 2017 and the said school has also issued the certificate, mentioning ICSE Pattern thereon, on completion of every respective years to his sons which clearly shows that the fact regarding adopting/following of ICSE pattern was came in the knowledge of complainant in the year 2012 but despite that he allowed his sons to study in the said school till 2017 and filed the present complaint only on 08.02.2019 therefore, the present complaint, in our considered view, is not maintainable being barred by limitation. Had it been so, it was open for the complainant to get the study of his sons discontinued from Apex Convent School/OP No.2 but he did not do so. Further, the complainant has also failed to satisfy this Commission with regard to having sufficient cause for not filing the present compliant within the specific and prescribed period. The relevant Section with regard to limitation of a consumer complaint is as under:

69.  Limitation period.

 

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

 

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub- section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

 

The main stress of learned counsel for the complainant is on letter dated 12.08.2017 (Ex.C25) wherein the concerned Officer had reached at the conclusion that the Apex Convent School has used the word ICSE pattern on the report card of the students wrongly and illegally and in violation of the rules and regulations of the department/government and further recommended for taking an action against the school as well as principal with returning the fee of the students but the District Elementary Education Officer, Fatehabad vide order dated 29.08.2022, placed on case file as Mark 3 has declared order dated 12.08.2017 as null and void, therefore, the complainant is ceased to raise the plea of using ICSE Pattern by the Ops is in violation of the rules and regulations further. Moreover, it is not understandable as to why the complainant kept on allowing his sons to study in the school on which he is leveling the allegations of fraud and mis-representation of the facts qua the affiliation of the school with ICSE. The present complaint was filed on 08.02.2019 and the proceedings which were taken place in the year 2017 on which the complainant is heavily relied upon were already in the knowledge of the complainant, therefore, the act and conduct of the complainant is not bonafide rather it appears that he is trying to take undue advantage of the benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act. On one hand, the sons of the complainant have enjoyed their schooling and have also used the amenities of the school from root level upto 4^th standard and 1^st standard and still they must be studying further by using the certificates issued by the Ops, after completing their respective years and on the other hand, the complainant is leveling allegations against the said school was not affiliated with ICSE for which the certificates were issued to his sons. The complainant has failed to show that as to what kind of loss he has suffered and as to what kind of unfair trade practice has been done to him.  There is nothing on the case file to show that the complainant has ever demanded school leaving certificate of his sons from the Ops immediately on knowing the alleged facts that the OP No.2 is not affiliated with ICSE and is using the ICSE pattern by violating the rules and regulations of the government. It is a settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his/her case without taking the benefit of opposite side but in the present case, the complainant has not led any satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary to prove his case, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has have not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and clinching evidence.  The verdict made by Hon’ble National Commission in case law titled as St.Aloysius College Versus Harshraj Gatti I (2016) CPJ 371 (NC) relied upon by learned counsel of the complainant is not disputed but the same is not helpful to the case of the complainant, therefore, same is being distinguished.

9.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present compliant is not maintainable before this Commission being barred by limitation and even there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 21.08.2023

 

 

                                                                                                          (K.S.Nirania)               (Harisha Mehta)                      (Rajbir Singh)                                  Member                            Member                            President