BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 15/06/2011

Date of Order : 29/09/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 313/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainants' case are as follows :-

The 1^st and 2^nd complainants are the children of the 3^rd complainant. The 1^st complainant was admitted to the 1^st standard in the 2^nd opposite party school run by the 1^st opposite party in the academic year 2007-2008. The opposite parties collected an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as admission fee and an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The 2^nd complainant was admitted in the 2^nd opposite party school in the academic year 2008-2009 by paying an amount of Rs. 21,000/- and admission fee of Rs. 5,000/-. The amounts were refundable, at the time the children get transferred from the school. The 3^rd opposite party was compelled to shift the children from the school, since poor academic standards the school has lost its affiliation and there was no PTA. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 26,000/- from the opposite parties. There was fee arrears of Rs. 15,250/-. Hence the opposite parties refunded only Rs. 1,785/- after deducting the fee arrears. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the balance amount of Rs. 30,785/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 11-04-2011.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

The complainants are not consumers within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The 1^st complainant was admitted to class 1 in 2007-2008 and left the school in 2011. The admission fee of Rs. 1,000/- collected at the time of admission is non-refundable. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was collected by way of donation towards development fund is also non-refundable. The 2^nd complainant sought admission to LKG during 2009-2010. The 3^rd complainant paid Rs. 5,000/- and proportionately refundable special advance fee of Rs. 21,000/-. The 2^nd complainant studied for 2 years and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is liable to be deducted from Rs. 21,000/-. The 3^rd complainant was entitled to get refund of Rs. 18,000/- provided, he had cleared all fee dues totalling Rs. 16,215/-. The balance amount of Rs. 1,785/- was refunded to the 3^rd complainant on 11-04-2011. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.

3. The 3^rd complainant was examined as PW1and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainants are consumers?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get refund of the fees as claimed by them?

5. Point No. i. :- The Hon'ble Apex Court in Budhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana and Ors. 2009 (3) KLT Suppl. 1512 (SC), held that imparting education by an educational institute is a service as per Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is not doubted on controverted that education is a fundamental right of any citizen of India as per the Constitution. In spite of that, how such a contention as raised by the opposite parties is tenable cannot be considered, especially in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Point No. ii. :- Admittedly, the 1^st complainant joined the 2^nd opposite party school on 08-06-2007 and remitted the following amounts towards fees under different heads evidenced by Exts. A1 and A2 :

Sl. No.	Date	Exhibits	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
	08-06-2007	A1	PTA annual subscription fee	100
	“	“	Admission fee	1,000
	“	“	Contingency fee	1,050
	“	“	School fee	1,630
	“	“	Smart class and tuition fee	330
	07-06-2007	A2	Corpus donation	20,000

7. The 2^nd complainant joined in the 2^nd opposite party school on 17-04-2009 by remitting the following amounts as per Exts. A3 and A4.

Sl. No.	Date	Exhibits	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
	20-11-2008	A3	Special advance fees	21,000
	“	“	Uniform charges	2,050
	17-04-2009	A4	School fee	1,750
	“	“	Admission fee	5,000
	“	“	ECA	800

8. Ext. A8 is the reply to the application under the Right to Information Act issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The 3^rd query and reply reads as follows :

Query

Reply

Can the schools collect Donation/ Admission Fee/ Advance Fee/ Special Advance Fee at the time of admission to LKG?

As per Affiliation Bye Laws Chapter – II rules II (1) Fees charges should be commensurate with the facilities provided by the institution. Fees should normally be charged under the heads prescribed by the Department of Education of the State/U.T. for schools of different categories. No capitation fee or voluntary donations for gaining admission in the school or for any other purpose should be charged/collected in the name of the school. In case of such malpractices, the Board may take action leading to disaffiliation of the school also.

9. The opposite parties rightly refunded the refundable fee to the 3^rd complainant after adjusting the school fee dues of the 1^st and 2^nd complainants. However, the opposite parties did not refund the corpus donation to the 3^rd complainant stating that the very mention donation indicates that the amount paid is non-refundable. However, law pertaining to schools and its Management does not permit the opposite parties to collect any sort of amount except the normal fees. The receipt of the corpus donation of Rs. 20,000/- is prima-facie against the Affiliation Bye-laws Chapter-II rules II (1) as stated in Ext. A8 however, we are not to delve into the matter. There is no rule or law prohibiting the opposite parties from retaining the other fees as per Exts. A1 to A4.

10. The complainants have stated various reasons in the complaint to withdraw the admission of the 1^st and 2^nd complainants from the 2^nd opposite party school, we need not consider the said contentions, since the 3^rd complainant in Exts. B6 and B7 letters stated other reasons for the same.

11. In view of the above, the complainants are at liberty to approach the Authority mentioned in Ext. A8 who are under law to resolve the issue.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/-C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========