Date of Filing: 11.09.2017

                                                                                        Date of Order:16.01.2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

      HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT.

                  Hon’ble  SRI K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc, M.A., L.L.B, MALE MEMBER         

  HON’BLE  SMT.CH.LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc, L.L.M,PGD(ADR) MEMBER

    ON THIS THE     THURSDAY THE 16^th     DAY   OF JANUARY  2020

C.C.No.414 / 2017

Between

Yenugu Vedanth Reddy,

S/o. Y.Surender Reddy,

Minor, Rep.by its father,

aged about 45 years,

Occ: Agriculturalist,

R/o. H.No.17-1-383/A/43/59,

Vinay Nagar Colony,

Saidabad, Hyderabad – 59,

Cell : 984863514.                                                 ……Complainant

And

1.   Abhyasa Residential Public School

      The Founder Director & C E O,

      Vinaayaka Kalleetla, S/o. Not Known,

      Regd.Office, D.No.10-3-183,

      St.Johns Road,

      Secunderabad – 500 025,

     Tel No.040-27822600, 66331518, T.S.

2 .  Abhyasa Residential Public School

      The Founder Director & C E O,

       Vinaayaka Kalleetla, S/o. Not Known,

       School campus, N H 7,

       Toopran, 502334,

       Medak Dist, T.S.

       Tel.No.08454-235718, 235966.                   ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainant                     :  Mr Muppu Ravindereddy,

Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 :  Mr. Manu

O R D E R

(By Sri. K.Ram Mohan B.Sc.,M.A., L L B. Member on behalf of the bench)    

1.              This complaint has been filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 alleging  negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party in not refunding  admission and tuition fee  paid by the complainant towards s admission of his son in 10^th Class of opposite parties residential  public school and thereby praying  this Forum to direct the opposite party to refund of Rs.1,40,000/- towards fee paid along with interest, to pay Rs.3,25,000/- towards compensation            and Rs,.25,000/- towards costs.

2.                     Briefly  stated, the relevant facts of the case are;  that the fee paid   Rs.1,40,000/- towards admission and tuition,  got his son admitted in the residential public school of opposite party,   on whose instructions the complainant’s father  took back his son,  who was said  to have attended the school only one day and got him admitted in  another school.  Subsequently,  complainant requested the opposite party to refund the fee paid but  the opposite party appears  to be silent,  despite issuance of a notice dt.26.8.2017 as well.  Hence this complaint with a  prayer to grant releifs as stated supra.

3)                  The opposite party got filed his written version denying the allegations made in the complaint except admitting the  fact of payment of fee towards admission and tuition , joining  of complainant and undertaking to comply with the  terms and conditions  of the  prospectus  of the institution by the complainant’s father, which was signed and submitted by him which disentitles the  complainant  in getting back the fee paid.  With self-interest of the complainant’s father,  complainant  was taken back from the opposite party’s school.  The opposite party further stated that this complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the provisions of the C P A of 1986 are not amenable to the educational institution  and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint stating that the student is not a consumer and   educational institution is not a service provider.  As such prayed  this Forum to dismiss the complaint  with costs.

4)                             During the enquiry , in order to substantiate their  respective pleadings , the complainant got filed his Affidavit evidence and  produced documents Exhibit  A1 to A4, opposite party got filed his written version, affidavit evidence and produced documents Exhibit B1 to B5.  Written arguments have also been got filed by the complainant and the opposite party as well.

5)       The points now emerge  for consideration  for disposal of this complaint are:

       1. Whether the consumer Forum  has  jurisdiction to entertain the complainant for  adjudicating   the dispute relating to refund of fees by the educational institution?

2. Whether  there is  any negligence or deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite party in  not refunding fee paid?

3.  Whether  complainant is  entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint? If so to what reliefs?.  

5.1)    Point No.1: . The contention of the opposite party stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint on the ground that the student is  not a consumer and the educational institution is  not a service provider is un-sustainable  in view of the decision rendered on 19^th August, 2019 by the NCDRC  in the case of   “ Bareet: CH and Nead Chada vs IMA Engineering college  and others,   wherein  it was held that the dispute concerning  the refund of fees to the student by the educational institution can be redressed by the consumer forum, as such this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for its adjudication.  Hence the answer to this point is given in favour of the complainant  but  against the opposite party.

5.2) Point No.2:   By reckoning  the document Exhibit B1 relating  to rules covering  the admission of a child  in the opposite party school, to which  both student  and educational institution are  bound to follow it and Exhibit B2  letter  having been duly  understood ,  consciously signed  and voluntarily submitted by the complainant’s   clearly shows that he would not claim further as to  refund of fee from the opposite parties’ school, as such the complainant is not entitled to get refund of  the paid  fee from the opposite party.  Thus  the answer to this point is given in favour of the opposite party  but  against the complainant.

5.3)          Point No.3:-  In view of the above discussion the complainant is not entitled  to any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Hence the answer  to this point is given in favour of the opposite party but  against the complainant.

In the result  and in the light of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed being bereft of merits and no order as to costs. 

Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the  16^th  day of  January, 2020

  MEMBER                  MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT  

         APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                 WITNESS EXAMINED                                                               

                                                                  NIL

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 -   Copy of  Admission Letter dated 23.4.2017

Ex.A2 –  Copy of Bank voucher  of D D issued of Andhra  bank through RPAD, dated 27.4.2017

Ex.A3 – Copy of Notice sent by me through RPAD dated 26.08.2017

Ex.A4 –  Fee 

Exhibits  filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:

 Ex.B1 –  Copy of Rules governing  the admission of a child into Abhyasa

 Ex.B2 -   Undertaking  by the parents

 Ex.B3 – Letter addressed to the  O P by the parent and child.

 Ex.B4 – Letter addressed to the OP by the parent

 Ex.B5 – Assessment  form with the Ack. Of the I T Department.

MEMBER                 MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT