Kanav Bhasin aged 5 years son of Rajesh Bhasin, resident of 1346-B, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh through his Natural Guardian and father Rajesh Bhasin.

                                                                                                .…Appellant

                                                Vs.

Ashiana Public School, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh through its Director, Smt Lalita Prakash.

                                                                                                …. Respondent

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, (Retd.) PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ]

                        Sh. Vinay Kataria, Advocate for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 12.12.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed  the complaint.

2                    Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant was admitted in Nursery Class in the Opposite Party School, for the Session 2009-10, though his age was below 3 years at the time of registration, as on December, 2009, and an amount of Rs.32,800/- was charged.  It was stated that though the parents of the complainant approached the Opposite Party School, for the admission of the complainant in Pre-Nursery Class, yet the administration of the School insisted
the complainant to get admission in the Nursery Class instead of Pre-Nursery Class, having been found him competent and eligible to sit in the Nursery Class.  It was further stated that the later on it came to the knowledge of the parents of the complainant that the Opposite Party deliberately admitted him in Nursury because Pre-Nursery seats were already filled. It further came to their knowledge that the Opposite Party wanted to retain the complainant rather than making him go to other school for its  benefit.  However, the Opposite Party School at the end of the session started complaining that the complainant was not performing well and, therefore, he would be retained in Nursery Class only. On the protest of the father of the complainant, the Opposite Party promoted the complainant to LKG Class for the session 2010-11 and charged Rs.38,650/-. It was further stated that, in the next Session – 2012-13, again the Opposite Party, raised the issue of slow learning of the complainant and insisted that he would have to be retained in LKG Class only.  The father of the complainant again raised protest, but the Opposite Party  School refused to promote the complainant to the next higher class i.e. U.K.G. and he was retained in LKG only, against the wishes of her parents as well as in violation of the statutory provisions of the Right of the Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It was further stated that the Opposite Party  School was so negligent in taking care of the complainant, that he had not been able to read, write or recognize numbers or words.. When this matter was taken up with the Opposite Party School by the parents of the complainant, a rude response was received that they could take the child wherever they wanted.  Subsequently, the complainant became reluctant to go to the School and on carefully asking him, as to what was the reason, he told that he was confined in a Dark Room when he went to School and even was slapped sometimes.  It was further stated that deliberate attempt was made to block the progress of child just to make him spend one more year in the School only for the monetary gain by the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that after receiving the fee, the Opposite Party not only committed violation of the Statutory Provisions by retaining the child in the same class, but subjected him to extreme pressure and torture by punishing him in the manner stated above.  Legal notice sent to the Opposite Party, did not yield any result.  It was further stated that, ultimately, the complainant’s father contacted another School namely Saint Xavier School, Sector 44, Chandigarh, where he had to be admitted in Nursery, thus causing loss of two years in education.  Hence, a complaint was filed alleging the said act of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer mental tension, agony and harassment.

3                    Reply was filed by the Opposite Party, wherein, it was stated that the material facts relating to the matter, in question, were concealed.  It was stated that as per the policy of the School, the admission is done on the first come first served basis, as per the age criteria as on 31st of March. In this case, at the time of admission of the complainant Kanav Bhasin, born on 29th June, 2007, his age was more than two years, so he did not fall under the category of age criteria of the prospectus. It was further stated that thereafter, they filled the form of admission of the said child, in Nursery Junior Class. Accordingly, the father of the complainant deposited the registration fee of Rs.5000/- on behalf of the said child in Nursery Junior Class. It was further stated that the father of the complainant filled a form, in his own handwriting, and signed the same after going through the contents of the prospectus and agreed to all terms & conditions specified therein. It was further stated that the allegations made, in the complaint, were baseless. The Management never had any intention to retain any child in the same class, but on the request of the father of the complainant, who himself, mentioned in the form (Annexure R-4) the word “Repeat” i.e. for continuation in the LKG Class, the complainant was retained in the same class. It was further stated that the child left the school without informing the School authorities and did not join the classes without any reason, nor sent any letter regarding his absence.  It was further stated that the father of the complainant did not obtain the transfer certificate, as well as the character certificate, from the Management of the School, nor applied for the same till date without any reasons. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4                    The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

6                    Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the instant appeal. 

7                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the appellant was a student of Nursery class of the Opposite Party School. He further submitted that at the time of admission the School Management assured the father of the appellant about the good education by play way method of learning. But at the end of the session they started complaining that the appellant was not performing well and was required to be retained in the same class i.e. Nursery despite the fact that academic knowledge and education is not material in these classes and the these classes are to ensure overall growth of the child in play way method. Therefore, the father of the appellant protested and, as such the child was promoted to LKG but subject to the condition that they would observe him for two months..  He further submitted that the for the next session i.e. 2012-13 the fee was got deposited from the father of the complainant and then the respondent conveyed that the appellant would have to be retained in LKG only..  He further submitted that the alleged slow progress, if any, of a normal child at the preliminary stage was the deficiency of the school.   He further submitted that the decision of retention of the appellant in LKG was after the fee was got deposited. It was further submitted that as per the established practice now even primary or middle school students are not to be declared fail, much less the students of nursery/kindergarten. He further submitted that it was an unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party, by subjecting a child of tender age, to face result of pass or fail, particularly when the child is not intended to undergo rigorous study in kindergarten class.  He further submitted that, as the parents of the appellant were from the very beginning opposed to the illegal activities of the respondent to retain the child, in the same class, they developed a disliking for the appellant. When the parents of the appellant enquired from the school about the efforts in making the appellant achieve the standard, the Opposite Party, very rudely told that they could take their child anywhere. He further submitted that due to the negligent act of the Opposite Party School, the appellant became reluctant to
go to the school and on raising the matter with the Opposite Party, the parents of the appellant were asked to get admitted their child in some other school.   He further submitted that the District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint by placing reliance on Annexure R-4. No doubt the word repeat was written but this word was without initials/signatures of the father of the appellant, so it could not be concluded that this word repeat was written by the father of the complainant or he had ever given any consent for the same.   He further submitted that the District Forum wrongly considered Annexure R-5, by ignoring the fact, that the parents of the complainant from the very beginning, took the stand that the same had never been received by them. Even the Opposite Party failed to place, on record, any postal receipt vide which the same was sent. Thus the order of the District Forum was perverse and illegal, and the same is liable to be set aside.

9                    On the other hand, the Counsel for the Opposite Party, submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, is just and fair, based on the documentary evidence, and the same requires no interference of this Commission. He further submitted that there was no role of the Opposite Party, to retain any child, in the same class, but the same was done on the request of the father of the appellant. It was further submitted that the father of the appellant, himself mentioned in the form the word “Repeat” for continuation in the LKG Class (Ann.R-4). He further submitted that all the students of the School were promoted to UKG and after discussion with the DEO, the appellant was also promoted to UKG thereafter, and the decision was intimated to his parents, but the child of his own, left the School without any reason. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.

10               The main grouse of the parents of the appellant, was that the Opposite Party School retained their child (appellant) in the same class i.e. LKG in violation of  the settled criteria, as it was a play way class, and question of retaining any child in the same class, did not arise at all. On other hand, according to the Opposite Party it had no role to retain child, in the same class, but the same was done on the request of the father of the appellant, and the same is evident from Annexure R-4. No doubt, in Annexure-4, word repeat was written, but, in the absence of any initials/signatures of the father of the appellant, beneath it, it cannot be said that the same was written by him, giving the consent to retain the child, in the same class. Thus no reliance can be placed on this document. The plea of the Opposite Party, thus, stands falsified. As such, the Opposite Party was at fault by initially retaining the appellant, in the same class, and thereafter allegedly promoting him after consulting the DEO, in the mid-session, to UKG class, though no document was produced, on record, by the Opposite Party, as to by which mode it had intimated the parents of the appellant, that he had been promoted to UKG.
Hence, it is established that the Opposite Party, was deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice.  This act of the Opposite Party caused a lot of humiliation and harassment to the complainant, as also his parents for which the appellant is certainly entitled to compensation  and the end of justice would be met, if the same is granted to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. Thus the  order of the District Forum is  liable to be set aside being perverse.

11               In view of the above discussion, we find merit, in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is allowed with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is partly accepted. The Opposite Party is directed in the following manner;

i.                    To pay to the appellant compensation of  Rs.25,000/- on account of  harassment and mental agony.

ii.                 To pay costs of Rs.5,000/-

12               The aforesaid order shall be complied with, by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified, copy of the same, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @12% P.A. on the amount awarded as per clause (i) above from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs.

13               Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.