Jharkhand

StateCommission

A/135/2014

The Principal Kairali Srigdala School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bidhan Chandra Bharti - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sanjeev Thakur

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RANCHI
FINAL ORDER
 
First Appeal No. A/135/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 05/07/2014 in Case No. CC/139/2012 of District Bokaro)
 
1. The Principal Kairali Srigdala School
IV/A, B.S. City Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City
Bokaro
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Bidhan Chandra Bharti
Near IX/D, Qr. No. 64, B-Road, B.S. City
Bokaro
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sumedha Tripathi MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
 
For the Respondent:
ORDER

13-01-2015- Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant on the prayer for condoning the delay.  He submitted that due to procedural reasons there has been delay of about 49 days in filing this appeal.

2.       Heard on merits.

3.       Under the impugned judgement, the learned District Forum interalia held as follows:-

        “ 5) Now considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, materials available in the record and the submission made on behalf of the parties we find that  complainant had deposited Bus fee along with tuition fee and other charges for his three wards amounting to rupees Rs. 4800/- His three wards namely Harshit Kumar Bharti, Sweta and Khooshubu were admitted in class II/B, Class I/C and K.G. (B) respectively. Considering their age, the complainant had opted Bus service facility for those small kids at the time of their admission and accordingly deposited bus bee also. But when the classes started, the school bus of O.P. not touched the locality of the complainant to collect the wards of the complainant and the wards of the complainant were deprived from the bus facility. The Complainant had to make alternative arrangement for carrying his wards to School and from School to his residence.

       The Complainant requested the O.P. to refund the Bus fee or to adjust the deposited Bus fee with tuition fee of those students but the O.P. refused to do so. In our view, it is clear case of deficiency in service. Rs. 4800/- was deposited for availing bus facility of three minor students but facility was not availed by them. In such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get back the Bus fee of those three students of the O.P. The letter of the complainant (Annex-A) should have been considered by the O.P. but his prayer has been rejected on technical ground”.

       Accordingly complaint is allowed and O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 4800/- ( Rs. Four thousand eight hundred) to the complainant and is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand) towards compensation total rupees 5800/- (Rs. Five thousand eight hundred) for causing deficiency in service to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.”

4.       Mr. Thakur  assailed the impugned judgement saying that three wards of the Complainant availed the bus service as because the school Bus used to carry several children from the same Mohalla and there was no reason for not taking the wards of the Complainant in the Bus. He also submitted that The Complainant never said that his wards were deprived of Bus service for about five months and then he requested by a letter dated 22.8.2012 that his wards were not availing Bus facility since the very beginning and therefore the Bus service may be cancelled and the Bus fee may be returned. He lastly submitted that if the impugned order is not set -aside, it will create a bad precedent for the parents to claim refund of Bus fee after availing Bus service.

5.       The said argument of Mr.Thakur is absolutely against the pleadings. Paragraph 3 to 6 of the complaint petition reads as follows:

“ 3. That, at the time of admission of the aforesaid three wards at the Kairali Sringdale School the opposite party has assured the complainant to provide bus facility for carrying his wards from his Mohalla i.e. Sector IX, Koyla Depot ,Ranipokhar to the School and the opposite party has received two months bus freight in advance against his each wards.

4. That, as per assurance the opposite party has not provided bus facility to the Mohalla of the complainant for carrying his wards deprived of availing bus facility of the school of the opposite party.

5. That, the complainant has immediately informed the matter to the opposite party personally as well as through the letter and requested him to provide bus service of the school in his mohalla but the opposite party has shown his inability to do so and told the complainant to send his wards to his school by tempoo.

6. That in spite of the same the opposite party has charged further two months freight against the bus service for each ward from the complainant and taken it payment also.”

6.       In reply to the said paragraphs the Appellant in its written statement stated as follows:-

        “ 14) That, in regard of para 3 to 6 of the complaint, the answering opp. Party humbly submit that, the allegation made therein is totally false and baseless. The school provide transport facility to carrying their students from particular place of colony to the school for imparting Education and parents have responsibility to collect or board their wards from particular place of the colony. The school transport facility are regularly uses by the other students of Sector IX,  but what reason the complainant wards cancelled to use to transport facility is best known to him. But in our record on 22.08.2012 complainant wrote a letter to cancel the bus facility of their ward and immediately transport facility was cancelled of complainant’s ward and no transport facility charge was collected through him from month of September, 2012.”

7.       From the said pleadings, it is clear that the Appellant gave a vague, general and evasive reply to the specific allegations made by the Complainant in paragraphs 3 to 6 of his complaint.      The Appellant did not state that the wards of the Complainant had availed Bus facility. Therefore the Appellant cannot be heard to say now that the wards of the Complainant availed Bus facility.

8.       In our view even if the delay of about 49 days in filing this appeal is ignored, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order.

9.       On this, Mr. Thakur prayed for adjournment for bringing on record documents to prove that the Bus service was availed by the wards of the Complainant.

10.     We are not inclined to grant such opportunity for the reason that there was no such case of the Appellant in it’s written statement.

11.     In the result, the delay in filing this appeal is ignored and the appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is directed to pay Rs.5,800/- to the Complainant within 60 days of this order, failing which the Appellant will also be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of this order, till the payment/ realization.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                  Ranchi,

        Dated:- 13-01-2015

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sumedha Tripathi]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.