DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.289 of 20-06-2011 Decided on 14-09-2011
Varinder Singh Sidhu aged about 37 years, S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, R/o Street No.29, S.A.S. Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
The Managing Director, Carmel Convent School, Barnala Bye Pass, Near Jeet Palace, Bathinda. The Principal, Carmel Convent School, Barnala Bye Pass, Near Jeet Palace, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Amandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Amanpal Singh Sekhon, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had got admitted his son Sahir Sidhu in L.K.G. Class in the school of the opposite parties for session 2010-11 for which his son has been selected by the opposite parties. For this, the complainant deposited Rs.43,320/- in two installments vide receipt dated 04.03.2010 for Rs.28,160/- and Rs.15,160/- dated 15.07.2010. The complainant has also paid Rs.5,000/- as van rent and Rs.1,500/- for books of L.K.G. Class but after receiving the above said fee, the opposite parties told the complainant that his son is eligible for Nursery, due to which one year of his son has been spoiled and besides this, the opposite parties had received approximately Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for the study of L.K.G. Class and despite that the opposite parties did not issue the certificate of passing of L.K,G. to the child of the complainant. The complainant has got admitted his son in Red Cliffe School, Shant Nagar, Bathinda in L.K.G. for session 2011-12. The complainant has further alleged that at the time of admission of his son in the school of the opposite parties, they have assured that their school authorities have purchased land measuring 12 acre at Bhucho Mandi for building the school and their school is having franchise of Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh but on verification, the complainant came to know that the school is not registered, having no franchise with Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh and they have also not purchased any land at Bhucho Mandi for school building. Thereafter, the complainant has served a legal notice dated 20.05.2011 upon the opposite parties but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant had got admitted his son in L.K.G. for session 2010-11 and he deposited Rs.43,320/- with the opposite parties as part payment towards the admission fee and annual fee etc. in two installments on 04.03.2010 and 15.07.2010. The complainant has also deposited Rs.5,000/- as van rent and Rs.1,500/- for books of LKG Class. The complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.38,000/- as admission fee, Rs.4,000/- as security, Rs.6,000/- as annual fee, Rs.3,000/- as maintenance fee and Rs.1,290/- per month for tuition fee of LKG for 8 months i.e. Rs.10,320/- and tuition fee Rs.900/- per month of Nursery Class for 4 months i.e. Rs.3,600/-, Rs.5,000/- as van rent, Rs.1,500/- on account of books of LkG and Rs.559/- for books of Nursery. In this way, the complainant was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.71,979/- but he was paid only Rs.49,820/- to the opposite parties and Rs.22,159/- is still due and outstanding against the complainant. After receiving the last installment, the opposite parties have never told the complainant that his son is eligible for Nursery Class rather son of the complainant continued studying in LKG for a period of 8 months but he was not properly doing the Syllabus of LKG and was weak in studies. So, the complainant himself wrote a letter dated 11.10.2010 to the opposite parties to demote his son to Nursery from LKG so that he may be saved from unnecessary burden. As per the wishes of the complainant, the opposite parties demoted the son of the complainant to Nursery class. The complainant without any prior notice to the opposite parties left the school and got admitted his son to some other school, even without getting Transfer Certificate from the school of the opposite parties and without informing the opposite parties only in order to avoid the payment of balance fee due against him. The complainant was given the Prospectus of the school containing all the terms and conditions and the same was filled by the complainant after carefully understanding those terms and conditions. The opposite parties never proclaimed that their school is affiliated with Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh. The opposite parties have never assured the complainant about purchase of land measuring 12 Acres at Bhucho Mandi for construction of building of the school rather it was clearly disclosed to the complainant and the parents of other students besides mentioning in the prospectus that the school will begin its transition to the main campus no later than April 2012 and the Main Campus will open no later than April, 2012. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. Admitted facts of the parties are that the son of the complainant has got admission in the school of the opposite parties for session 2010-11 and the opposite parties had received Rs.43,320/- in two installments vide receipt dated 04.03.2010 for Rs.28,160/- and Rs.15,160/- on 15.07.2010. He has paid Rs.5,000/- as van rent and Rs.1,500/- for books of L.K.G. Class. Thereafter, the child of the complainant was declared not eligible for L.K.G. class rather he was eligible for Nursery class. 6. The complainant has submitted that his child has been demoted to Nursery class on account that he is no eligible for the L.K.G. class after a period of 8 months. The opposite parties have not issued a certificate of passing of L.K.G. class to the child of the complainant. The opposite parties at the time of admission have also assured the complainant that they have purchased land measuring 12 acre at Bhucho Mandi for building the school and the School is having franchise of Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh but the school of the opposite parties is neither affiliated nor they purchased any land for raising the construction of school building. 7. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant has written a letter dated 11.10.2010 to the opposite parties to demote his child to Nursery class as he was not able to co-up with syllabus of L.K.G. class. On the receipt of letter written by the complainant, the opposite parties have demoted the child of the complainant to Nursery class. The opposite parties have further submitted that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.38,000/- as admission fee, Rs.4,000/- as security, Rs.6,000/- as annual fee, Rs.3,000/- as maintenance fee and Rs.1,290/- per month for tuition fee of LKG for 8 months i.e. Rs.10,320/- and tuition fee Rs.900/- per month of Nursery Class for 4 months i.e. Rs.3,600/-, Rs.5,000/- as van rent, Rs.1,500/- on account of books of LkG and Rs.559/- for books of Nursery. In this way, he had to pay a total sum of Rs.71,979/- but he paid only Rs.49,820/- to the opposite parties and Rs.22,159/- is still due and outstanding against the complainant. The son of the complainant had studied in L.K.G. class for about 8 months . However, he was not properly doing the syllabus of L.K.G. class and was weak in studies and as such, the complainant himself wrote a letter dated 11.10.2010 to the opposite parties to demote his son to Nursery from L.K.G. As per the wishes of the complainant, the opposite parties demoted the son of the complainant to Nursery class so that he may be saved from unnecessary burden. The complainant has taken his child from the school without any prior notice to the opposite parties and got admitted his son in some other school without obtaining Transfer Certificate from the opposite parties. The opposite parties have never assured the complainant or other parents that their school is affiliated with Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh or they have purchased any land measuring 12 Acres for the construction of the school building at Bhucho Mandi. 8. The child of the complainant remained admitted in the school of the opposite parties for about 8 months and has been studying in L.K.G. class. During these 8 months, the class teacher who was teaching the son of the complainant, has never pointed out that the child of the complainant is weak in studies and is unable to bear the burden of L.K.G. class and is not fit to sit in L.K.G. class. The opposite parties remained silent without intimating the complainant, continued the child in L.K.G. class. The teacher who is teaching the child of such a tender age, was the best Judge to judge his progress and to point out the weakness of the child in study but he/she never bothered to inform his parents. The opposite parties kept the parents blind for the period of 8 months. The dispute arose when the child learnt nothing and the complainant approached the opposite parties that his child has not learned anything and at that time, the opposite parties got a letter from the complainant to demote his son to Nursery class just to save their skin whereas the foremost duty was of the Principal and teachers to inform the complainant regarding the progress of the child which they have failed to do so. 9. A perusal of Registration Form Ex.R-3 shows that the parents of the child are not highly qualified, they have been befooled by allurement given by the opposite parties. It was also the duty of the parents to approach earlier to the opposite parties and agitate the matter regarding the progress of their child in study. Even if, they have approached late, the first step has been taken from their side whereas it was to be taken from the side of the opposite parties. The teachers are the nation builders and the L.K.G. class is a very small class i.e. foundation of the school as well as society, the opposite parties have failed to perform their moral as well as social duties towards the child. The opposite parties have not shown any bonafide, if they would have realized their mistake, they should have offered the complainant to teach their child in the fee, he has already deposited. To the utter dismay, the opposite parties have submitted that on the application of the father of the child, they have demoted the child to Nursery class but a perusal of Ex.R-2 shows that there is no Nursery class in the school. The opposite parties again trying to mislead and befool the parent/complainant. The School is neither franchised with Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh nor affiliated to any board nor the land has been purchased for building the school. Now, the opposite parties have expressed their money mindness to the extent that they are demanding more money instead of admitting their own mistake which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana & Others, 1 (2009) CPJ 25 (SC) wherein, it has been held:- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) – Education – Unfair trade practice – Advertisement – False and misleading – Institute neither affiliated with University nor recognized by Dental Council of India – Respondents lost two valuable academic years – Consumer complaint filed – Refund of admission expenses with interest @ 12% p.a., alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- each, directed by National Commission – Civil appeal filed – In absence of affiliation by university and recognized by Dental Council of India, appellant institute could not have started admission in four years degree course of BDS – Total misrepresentation on behalf of institute tantamounts to unfair trade practice – Deficiency in service on part of institute proved – Claimant respondents held entitled to claim relief – Order of National Commission held – Appellant institute directed to pay additional compensation of Rs. One Lakh to each respondent – Cost of Rs. One Lakh each imposed.” 10. The son of the complainant has learned nothing and the Principal and teachers failed to perform their duties. Ultimately, the complainant has to shift his child to other school in Nursery class which shows that one precious year of the child has been spoiled. In such circumstances, the opposite parties are not liable to retain even a single penny from the amount deposited by the complainant for the education of his son. 11. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.49,820/- (i.e. Rs.43,320/- deposited in two installments vide slip dated 04.03.2010 of Rs.28,160/- and 15.07.2010 of Rs.15,160/-, Rs.5,000/- as van rent and Rs.1,500/- for books of L.K.G. Class) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the amount of Rs.49,820/- till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 14-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul) Member Member |
