Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/261/2018

Thamizhmanam Gunasekaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

ateway the Complete School & another - Opp.Party(s)

K.Venkatasubramanian

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on :01.11.2010                                                                      

                                                                         Date of disposal            :21.11.2022

                                                                                    

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                            : MEMBER-1

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA      : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.261/2018

 

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 21^st  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

Thamizhmanam gunasekaran,

M 304 Lancor Central Park Appartment,

ELCOT Avenue,

Shollinganallur Chennai-119.

                                                                                             .. Complainant.       

..Vs..

1. Gateway The Complete School,

By its Principal

43, Neduchezian Road,

Shollinganallur Chennai-119                                         

 

2. The Principal Gateway Schools,

2/664 Rengareddy Garden,

ECR Road, Neelankarai,

Thiruvanmiyur Chennai-41.

                                                                                      ..  Opposite parties..

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. K. Venkatasubramanian

 

Counsel for the opposite parties            : M/s. D.Simon.

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          The complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party for his deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to direct the opposite party to refund of Rs.88000/- paid on 15.02.2010 with interest @ 24% p.a. till repayment and to pay Rs.15000/- for the deficiency of service by the opposite parties in having failed to refund fees paid and to pay Rs.15000/- for unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties and to pay Rs.10000/- for the resultant mental agony and pain caused by such deficiency of service and to pay Rs.10000/- costs.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 401/2010.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.261/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant states that she sought admission for her kids namely Riddhi Gunasekaran and Smirithi Gunasekaran into 6^th Std. and 1^st Std. respectively in the month of Feb. 2010 for the year 2010-2011 in the Gateway The Complete School in Sholinganallur.  The complainant was informed to pay Rs.88,000/- as entire 1^st term fees for the academic year 2010-2011 in advance and accordingly she had paid the same by Cheque No.090970 on 15.02.2010 which was acknowledged by the opposite party vide receipt No. 55 dated 15.02.2010.  Due to the reasons beyond her control caused by the transfer of her husband’s job and family situation, she was unable to send her children to the school as originally planned.  Therefore, the complainant narrated her difficulties to the opposite party even before the start of academic year 2010-11 and requested for refund of entire 1^st term fees paid in advance to opposite parties.  The complainant contacted the opposite parties through phone and mails.  The complainant had sent amail on 23.06.2010 to the opposite parties but the opposite parties had not replied or refunded till date.  Even for the legal notice the opposite parties failed to refund the advance fees.  The complainant submits that opposite parties’ refusal to refund the fees paid, is contrary to well laid guidelines by the government in this regard and floating norms and rules amounts to deficiency in service.  The action of the opposite parties amounts to unjust enrichment and caused mental agony and pain  to complainant.  Hence this complaint praying for reliefs.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties deny the various averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant and the complainant is under strict liability to prove those denied averments.  The opposite parties running the educational institutions for the welfare of poor and downtrodden people in Thiruvanmiyur and Sholinganallur areas and they are offering best education in very low fee structure for the welfare of the people in the locality.  The opposite parties state that complainant had sought admission for her their kids Riddhi & Smirthi in the academic year 2009-10 itself and school granted admission for their kids and the complainant had paid fees vide cheque No. 703753 dated 12.09.2009 for Rs. 71,000/- but on deposit of cheque, the same had been returned from bank stating insufficient funds.  When the opposite parties contacted the complainant for the return of cheque, the complainant said that she was unable to join her kids in the school for the reason that her husband was transferred somewhere else.  The opposite party further states that the complainant again came forward to put their kids in the school for the academic year 2010-11 and the opposite parties warned the complainant that she should not relegate from her promise like previous occasion and the management of the school clearly informed the complainant that fees once paid, the management will provide work books / activity books / other materials and further the fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances and the complainant also accepted the conditions and received the entire books and records from our management after payment of 1^stTerm fees.  The opposite party submits that complainant had accepted the conditions and promised the management that she will not behave like earlier occasion and will not claim refund but now claiming for refund is promissory estoppel.  The opposite parties states that school never asked the complainant to take her kids from their school once the admission for the academic year 2010-2011 was granted and only the complainant had took away her children from the school after receiving the benefits from the school for the fees paid and as such there is no deficiency of the service on the part of school and as such the school need not pay the amount as claimed under various heads in the complaint filed by the complainant.  Therefore, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as stated in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any refund and compensation as prayed?  To what extent?

The complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence, written argument and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A2 were marked on her side.The opposite parties had filed written version, proof affidavit and documents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked on their side.

4.POINT NO :1

          The complainant had sought admission for her kids namely Riddhi Gunasekaran and Smirithi Gunasekaran into 6^th Std. and 1^st Std. respectively in the month of Feb. 2010 for the year 2010-2011 in the Gateway The Complete School in Sholinganallur and paid Rs.88,000/- as entire 1^st term fee (for six months) for the academic year 2011-2011 in advance vide Cheque No.090970 at 15.02.2010 which was acknowledged by the opposite party vide receipt No. 55 dated 15.02.2010.  The receipt and fee structure issued by the opposite parties was marked as Ex. A1.  Due to the reasons beyond her control caused by the transfer of her husband’s job and her family situation, she was unable to send her children to the school as originally planned and therefore, the complainant narrated her difficulties to the opposite party even before the start of academic year 2010-11 and requested refund of entire 1^st term fee paid in advance from the opposite parties.  The complainant contacted the opposite parties through phone and a mail was sent on 23.06.2010 but the opposite had neither replied nor refunded till date.  Hence a legal notice was issued to the opposite parties on 30.06.2010 which is marked as Ex. A2. 

5.  The opposite parties on their part state that complainant had sought admission for her their kids Riddhi & Smirthi in the academic year 2009-10 itself and school granted admission for their kids and the complainant had paid fees vide cheque No. 703753 dated 12.09.2009 for Rs. 71,100/- but on deposit of cheque, the same had been returned from bank stating insufficient funds.  The receipt issued for Rs.71100/- was marked as Ex. B1 and the memo issued by bank was marked as Ex. B2.   The fee brochure for the academic year 2009-10 was marked as Ex. B3.  When the opposite parties contacted the complainant about the return of cheque, the complainant told that she was unable to join her kids in the school for the reason that her husband was transferred somewhere else.  The opposite parties further states that complainant again came forward to put their kids in the school for the academic year 2010-11 and the opposite parties also provided admission to the complainant’s kids for 1^st and 6^th standard with a condition that fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances and accordingly received fees of Rs. 88,000/- being the Ist term fees and issued books and records. The receipt issued for Rs. 88,000/- was marked as Ex. B4. The opposite parties claims that having accepted the conditions, complainant only sought for refund of fees after receiving the benefits and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          6.  The admitted fact of the complaint is that complainant had sought admission for her kids for 1^st and 6^th standard and paid fees of Rs.88,000/- towards Ist Terms fees as seen from Ex. A1 and Ex. B4.    The complainant alleged that she paid fees in the month of Feb. 2010 itself i.e. before the start of academic year.  Due to transfer of her husband and family situation, she could not put her kids in the school, and she informed the management of school well in advance i.e. before the start of academic year her inability to send kids to school and sought refund of fees paid.  As per the complainants’ averments that she made requests for refund before the start of academic year 2010-11 through phone calls and mails and in particular a mail was sent on 23.06.2010 for which the opposite parties neither replied nor refunded the fees paid.  But no proof of mail was filed by the complainant.  The complainant also sent legal notice demanding refund of Ist term fees as per Ex. A2 but the opposite parties not responded.  On the other hand, the opposite parties contends that the complainant had sought admission for her kids for Sr. KG and 5^th Std. in the academic year 2009-10 itself and paid fees of Rs.70,100/- through cheque which was returned from bank stating insufficient funds.  From the Ex. B1, B2 and B3, it is observed that the complainant had sought admission for her kids for Sr. KG and 5^th Std. and the cheque submitted by her was returned from bank.  When asked about the return of cheque, the complainant stated the reason of transfer of her husband.  In view of this, the opposite parties put conditions while seeking admission for next academic year 2010-2011 which was accepted by complainant and based on this, the opposite parties given admission to complainants’ kids for 1^st Std and 6^th Std. and accepted the Ist term fees of Rs.88,000/- vide Ex.A1 and Ex.B4.  No documents were filed by the opposite parties for the acceptance of conditions imposed by the complainant.  When the complainant asked for the refund of fees, the opposite parties claims that it was only complainant had not sent them to school and the opposite parties never sent them out of school.  Therefore, the opposite parties claim that there was no deficiency of service on their part and further the complainant was informed of the conditions that fees will not be refunded under any circumstances and the same is mentioned in the Receipt and Fee Structure as seen in Ex. A1 and further the complainant had received entire books and records and hence they refused to refund fees.  Though the complainant did not deny the receipt of books and records but claims that their kids never attended any class and they sought refund even before start of academic year.  It is observed from the Ex.A1 and B4, the type of fee is mentioned as Ist term fees and the complainant in her legal notice mentioned the Ist term fees for a period of six months.  Further the opposite parties in the receipt and fee structure have not mentioned fees separately for books and records.  In the absence of such information, it appears from Ex.A1, the fee structure, the fees paid by the complainant was towards Academic Fees and the total academic fees for the whole year for 1^st and 6^th Std put together is Rs. 1,76,000/- (Rs.76,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) and the 1st Term fees for six months works out to Rs.88,000/-. 

          7.  The learned counsel for complainant relied upon the order FA08/1043 dated 10.12.2008 issued by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sehgal School of Competition Vs Dalbir Singh  and contended that no institute or coaching center shall charge lumpsum fees for the hole duration and further contended that fees once paid shall not be refunded is unfair and therefore no enforceable.

          8.  The facts of the above case is not similar to the present case.  In this present case, the complainant had paid 1st Term fees  which is for a period of six months as stated by complainant in the legal notice and the complainant herself decided not to send her kids to opposite parties’ school at her own instance before the start of academic year, further the opposite parties never denied admission to her kids.  Therefore,  the contention of complainant is not sustainable since no deficiency in service is observed on the part of opposite parties. 

          9.  Further as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the CC No. 261 of 2012 order dated 20 Jan 2020 wherein it is held that “the institutions rendering education including vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except coaching institutions, will therefore, not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

10.  In another decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Revision Petition No.2006 of 2019 order dated 11 Oct. 2022 it was held that “Admittedly, the petitioner institute is rendering education to all the persons, including the Complainant/Respondent, and  is not running a coaching institute.  Therefore, the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Commission in the case of Manu Solanki (Supra), which I am bound to follow, is fully applicable and the Institute does not fall with the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is not rendering any services”.

11.  In this present case, the opposite party is rendering education and the complainant had paid fees for availing education to her kids and hence this commission of considered view that as laid down by the National Commission in the above said decisions, this complaint does not fall under the purview of consumer protection act 1986.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed in the complaint. Point  No. 1 is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.2.

          Based on findings given in the Point.No.1, this complaint does not fall under the purview of consumer protection act 1986 and therefore the complainant is not entitled for refund and compensation as claimed in the complaint. Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs

Dictated  by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21^st day of November 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	15.02.2010	Receipt with annexure
Ex.A2	30.06.2010	Legal notice with Ad card.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1	12.09.2009	Receipt dated 12.09.2009 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B2	15.09.2009 & 07.09.2009	SBI cheque bearing No.703753 issued by the complainant to the opposite party and cheque return memo issued by the SBI
Ex.B3		Fee brochure for the academic year 2009-2010 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.B4	15.02.2010	Receipt.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT