BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 233/2009 Filed on 24.08.2009

Dated : 15.11.2011

Complainant :

T.S. Sukesan, Harisree, T.C 48/1092-1, Ambalathara, Poonthura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-26.

(By adv. Vazhuthacaud R. Narendran Nair)

Opposite parties :

1. Chinmaya Educational, Cultural & Charitable Trust, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

    

2. The Chief Sevak, Chinmaya Educational, Cultural & Charitable Trust, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

    

3. The Principal, Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Attukal, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Krishna Kumar)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 20.10.2011, the Forum on 15.11.2011 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: For getting admission to 1^st standard for his daughter Sreekutty. S for the academic year 2009-2010 as demanded, the complainant on 22.04.2009 remitted total Rs. 10,065/- to the Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Manacaud, Attukal. The complainant's daughter never attended even a single class in the 1^st standard as she got admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Thiruvananthapuram before commencement of classes in the opposite party school. At the time when the complainant approached for admission, he had informed the opposite party the possibility of getting admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya and 3^rd opposite party had given him positive assurance of refund of the amount remitted. Before commencement of the classes in the opposite party's school, the complainant's daughter got admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pattom and immediately on getting admission, he informed the matter to the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested refund of the amount of Rs. 10,065/-. But the opposite parties refused refund, contrary to the assurance given at the time of accepting money. It is submitted that the non-refund of the amount to the complainant by the opposite parties is illegal, improper and against all statutory guidelines. The illegal, unfair and irresponsible act and the gross deficiency in service of the opposite parties caused great mental agony, loss, injury and untold hardships to the complainant. Hence apart from the refund of the amount remitted the complainant is legally entitled to get compensation. Hence this complaint for compensation and costs.

Opposite parties in their version contend as follows: Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant's daughter obtained admission to Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Attukal on 22.04.2009. The complainant was residing near the school and he pleaded the opposite parties to give an admission to his daughter in the school. There was heavy rush for new admissions to class I as the opposite parties are having their own LKG/UKG. The complainant's daughter was given admission to the school as they are residing near the school. Whether or not the complainant's daughter got admission in another school before the commencement of classes in the opposite party's school is not within the knowledge of the opposite parties. The complainant never informed the opposite parties regarding the possibility of getting admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya. He never made any enquiry regarding the refund of fees. It is not correct to say that the 3^rd opposite party assured the complainant to refund the fees in case the complainant's daughter gets admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya. Generally the fees once remitted is not refunded. Because of this act of the complainant, opportunity of another student is lost and one seat in the 1^st standard of the school remains vacant. The complainant failed to inform the opposite parties that his daughter got admission in another school. His daughter became a student of 1^st standard from 22.04.2009 onwards. When class started, his daughter was absent from 1^st June. The complainant remitted the fees after obtaining admission in the opposite party's school. His daughter is still in the roll of the school. The complainant informed the opposite parties, regarding the admission in another school, only after the enquiry made by the opposite parties and that too after 9 days from the date of commencement of classes. The complainant's irresponsible action caused the loss of chance to another student to study in the opposite party's school and also loss to the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are not entitled to refund the amount remitted by the complainant and is not entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1, marked Exts. P1 to P13. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of opposite parties. Opposite parties had no oral evidence.

Based on the pleadings, the issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- There is no dispute regarding the admission of the complainant's child to opposite parties' school and the payment of fees is also not disputed. Here the issue in dispute is with regard to refund of the amount of Rs. 10,065/- paid to the opposite parties by the complainant at the time of admission of his daughter in opposite parties' school as according to the complainant the complainant's daughter never attended even a single class in the said school as she got admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, before commencement of classes in the opposite party school. The complainant argued that opposite parties adduced no evidence to prove that the name of the student was called in the class from 1^st June to 9^th June and also that she is still a student in the school as averred in the version. That the opposite parties have also not adduced any evidence to prove averment in the version that the class teacher contacted the complainant over phone about the absence of the student and only then he demanded refund of the fees and threatened the class teacher Geetha. V. The said Class Teacher has not been examined as a witness. The opposite parties have contended that the complainant never informed the school about the absence of his daughter and that, only after the opposite parties' enquiry, the complainant cared to inform the opposite parties regarding the reason of absence of his daughter. Further opposite parties contend that the opposite parties neither tried to secure any unlawful financial gain nor to defraud the complainant. That in fact it is the complainant who defrauded the opposite parties, suppressing the fact that he is trying for admission to another school and he obtained admission in another school without obtaining Transfer Certificate from Chinmaya Vidyalaya. That his daughter is still a student in the opposite party school. Things being so, letter dated 04.02.2010 issued by the CBSE to the opposite parties' school Principal is to be looked into. As per the said letter which has been marked as Ext. P9, the CBSE has directed the Principal, Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Manacaud, Attukal to refund the donation and “Corpus Fund” collected from the complainant. Further the CBSE has mentioned that 'it is evident that the school has violated the norms of Chapter II Rule 11 of Affiliation-Bye-Laws of the Board by accepting donation from the complainant. As per rules, no voluntary donations for gaining admission in the school should be charged'. It is also stated that the school has charged 'Corpus Fund' from the complainant. Further the school is directed to follow the norms of Affiliation/Examination Bye-Laws of the Board strictly in future and not to charge such fees from Parents/Guardian for granting admission. Ext. P11 dated 22.04.2010 is another direction by the CBSE to the opposite party school directing to refund the donation and Corpus Fund collected from the complainant under intimation to the Board within 15 days. In Ext. P11 also, the CBSE has directed the school to follow the norms of Affiliation/Examination Bye-Laws of the Board strictly in future and not to charge such fees from parents/guardian for granting admission.

Hence taking into consideration the documents Exts. P9 and P11, it could be seen that the case of the complainant has been established beyond doubt. We need not go into any other aspects of this issue when Exts. P9 and P11 are before us. Further Ext. P13 which is addressed to the complainant by the CBSE it has been stated that “As per our office letter dated 29.04.2010, the Principal of Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Manacaud, Attukal, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala was directed to refund the donation and corpus fund collected by the school. Now in its response, the school has informed that you have filed a case in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The delay in settling the refund of corpus fund was due to said reason beyond their control. School has further informed that if you withdraw the case with the Consumer Forum, they will refund the fees at any time”. The complainant contends that the said assurance given by the school authorities to the CBSE can be viewed as a clear admission that the amounts due were illegally collected by them.

From the above, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case. The act of the opposite parties in non-refund of the money collected from the complainant which is against the norms of CBSE amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the opposite parties are hereby directed to refund Rs. 10,065/- to the complainant. The complainant has been unnecessarily made to suffer due to the deficient act of the opposite parties for which he has to be compensated and we find that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the same.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund Rs. 10,065/- the amount collected from the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of the order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of November 2011.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 233/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sukesan T.S

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of the receipts

P2 - Copy of the list of provisionally selected candidates for

admission to class-I

P3 - Copy of letter dated 15.06.2009 issued by the complainant

P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 07.07.2009

P5 - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.07.2009.

P6 - Copy of postal receipts.

P7 - Copy of acknowledgement card

P8 - Copy of letter dated 19.08.2009 issued by the complainant

P9 - Copy of letter dated 04.02.2010

P10 - Copy of letter dated 23.03.2010

P11 - Copy of letter dated 22.04.2010

P12 - Copy of letter dated 17.05.2010.

P13 - Copy of letter dated 19.07.2010

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of the list of candidates

D2 - Copy of Register of Attendance and Fees for the month of 06/2009-2010.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb