Date of Filing:19.07.2010<br /> Date of Order: 01.09.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1633 OF 2010<br /> R. Venkateshalu<br /> # 81, 7th Cross, I Block<br /> II Main, B E L Layout<br /> Vidyaranyapura<br /> Bangalore 560 097 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> B.E.L. Educational Institutions<br /> Management Committee<br /> Jalahalli, Bangalore 560 013 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he is a retired person. He has a son by name Lokesh. He has got daughter by name Reshma whose age is three years. On 09.04.2010 the grand daughter of complainant was admitted to Shishu Vihar Kendra, BEL Kishore Vihar, Nagaland Circle, Jalahalli and remitted a sum of Rs. 8,650/- by cheque. The said school is run by opposite party. Subsequently, complainant found difficult to live in Bangalore considering the cost of living and he shifted family to Kuppam, Chittoor District. School was yet to reopen. He met Secretary and President of opposite party institution several times requesting for refund of the amount paid by him. However, the opposite party refused to refund the amount. In view of the same there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party may be directed to refund Rs. 8,650/-.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed defence version stating that claim of refund is not sustainable in law. The complainant is not a ‘Consumer’. Refund of fee once paid will not be permissible under rules. Hence, complainant cannot claim refund at this juncture. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to reject the claim.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of fee?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 3. Whether the opposite party can refuse to pay the amount?<br /> 5. The complainant has produced receipts passed by opposite party which is dated 09.04.2010. As per this receipt the complainant has paid Rs. 8,650/-. Apart from this amount the complainant has also paid Rs. 60/- towards admission form on 09.04.2010 and he has produced another receipt of Rs.110/- which is towards registration and prospectus. This receipt is dated 22.03.2010. The amount had been paid for the admission of grand daughter of complainant to LKG. The grand daughter had not attended the school even for a single day. Before start of school the complainant shifted his residence form Bangalore to Kuppam, Chittoor District. Therefore, grand daughter was not able to attend nursery school of opposite party. The complainant demanded refund of amount from the opposite party. But, unfortunately the opposite party institution refused to refund the amount. The refusal of the opposite party to refund the amount is highly unjustified. The opposite party submitted that fee once paid will not be refundable as per their rules. But, opposite party has not produced any rules or any documents or agreement or prospectus to show that fee once paid will not be refundable under any circumstances. Even otherwise such kind of rule cannot be held as valid, just and fair. The mind set on the part of service provider that once fee paid is not refundable requires to be changed. The law does not permit education institution or any other institution to take amount from the consumers without providing any service. Admittedly, in this case the grand daughter of complainant not attended the nursery school and well in advance before the start of school the complainant demanded refund of the amount. Therefore, the opposite party institution should have honourably refunded the amount without taking any objections. The objection taken by the opposite party in this case has no legal basis. Such kind of objection cannot be entertained or accepted by any court of law. The complainant is definitely comes under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Therefore, the complaint is maintainable. The opposite party institution shall have to be directed to refund Rs. 8,650/- immediately. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 8,650/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till date of refund.<br /> 7. The opposite party institution is directed to send the amount by way of D.D. or cheque directly to the complainant with intimation to this forum.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />