Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/7

Surjit Chakraborty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Kumar, Principal, Dav Public School - Opp.Party(s)

Annu Kumari

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

Complainant Surjit Chakraborty filed this case for claim of Rs. 33750/- with 18% interest and compensation to pay Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000/-

2          The case in short is that complainant got his son Sushant Charaborty admitted in D.A.V. Public School, Sector-4 at Bokaro in class XI for session 2014-15. His son got admission No. 2014/14500. Complainant had deposited Rs. 33,750/- on the date of admission.

            Complainant’s son got admission in a School at native place Burdwan (W.B). as such on 14-06-2014, Complainant sent a letter for withdrawal of his son and return of money again, a letter was sent on 18-06-2014 for the same reason but O.P. did not refund the amount.

            Hence , this case is filed.

3          Complainant filed following documents:-

            Anx-1- Copy of fee receipt of Rs. 33750/-

            Anx-2- Copy of the letter dt. 14-06-2014 to O.P. for refund.

            Anx-2/1- Copy of reminder letter

            Anx-3- Copy of public advertisement by AICTE regard return of

fee return.

4          O.P.  appeared and filed show cause cum written statement. It is admitted that son of the complainant had taken admission and fee deposited. But it is submitted that after taken few days appearance in the School Son of the Complainant was absent from the class without any information. It is denied any letter was received from the complainant but admitted ordinary letter in august was received and replied accordingly. It further submitted that there was an undertaking duly signed by the complainant that after admission no fee will be refunded. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service.

            Anx-A Copy of the undertaking is filed by O.P.

FINDINGS

5          Persued the record and the documents filed. We have no doubt complainant is a consumer having paid money for education of his son. The dispute is also a Consumer dispute.

6          O.P. has admitted the admission as well as fee receipt on behalf of the son of the complainant.

            The dispute is on the basis of undertaking (Anexture-A) showing clause 9 “ If my ward decline to continue class XI after admission no feel will be refunded.

            The School is a private School but O.P. cannot force the guardian of his ward to do a work against their will, Which is against principle of natural justice.

            Having considered the entire facts, we are of the view that O.P. has to refund fee deposited under principle of natural justice but at the same time O.P. is also entitled to refund money after deducting processing fee and one months tuition fee to the complainant.

7          Thus , we allow part claim of the complainant. O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 31,050/- after deducting Rs. 1000/-  as processing fee and 1700/- s fee of one months) to the complainant . without any intrest and O.P. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- for harassment.

            Both parties to bear cost of the litigation payment must be paid within 45 days of this under family which interested   @ 10% p.m. will be liable to be paid on the refund amount till realisation.