Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/333/2017

Ajay Parbhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chitkara International School - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/333/2017
Date of Institution	:	18/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	26/03/2018

 

1.     Ajay Parbhakar s/o Surinder Paul Parbhakar r/o H.No.830, Sector 40A, Chandigarh.

2.     Pinki w/o Namit Swami r/o No.850/1, Sector 40A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

Chitkara International School, Udyog Path, Sector 25 (West), Chandigarh through its Chairman/Director/ Principal/Authorised signatory.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                  

                           

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Munish Goel, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Dinesh Arora, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Joint complaint filed by the complainants being the natural guardians of their minor daughters studying in the school of the OP. Their grievances are, complainant No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.43,700/- being admission fee, development fee and caution fee to the OP.  It is the case, the OP vide circular dated 25.3.2013 instructed the complainants to follow the instructions blindly otherwise the name of child would be struck off from class. Further ground of complaint is, Annual Material Fee for Fledgling fixed at Rs.3,000/-. OP did not give option to the complainants to purchase books and other material from the market which is unfair trade practice. Both the complainants made reference of the fee which they deposited with the OP. Other specific allegations are daughter of complainant No.1 used to complain that the driver of the bus used to drive bus rashly or negligently. In spite of it, no action was taken by the OP. Maintained, on 11.1.2017 an accident had occurred. The crime of rash and negligent driving was acknowledged vide FIR No.10 dated 11.1.2017. OP did not inform complainant No.1 about the accident and did not show courtesy.  It is also the case, OP did not take care of the children. The daughter of the complainant was terrified and even unable to speak. Further, it is the case, the State Transport Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 18.1.2017 cancelled the permit of bus No.CH-01-TA-4360.  It is also the case, there are circulars and instructions which carries the force of law.  The OP had violated the safe transport policy for students and had charged fee in flagrant violation of the rules.  Hence, on these averments, it is prayed, there is unfair trade practice, restrictive trade practice as well as deficiency in service and certain directions needs to be passed. Alongwith this, prayer was made for compensation for mental tension, harassment etc. Hence, the present consumer complaint. 
2.         OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its reply. In the contents of the reply, allegations made in the consumer complaint were denied. It is the case, every instructions are being followed in its letter and spirit alongwith quality education and facilities for which the parents of the children have to bear the burden commensurate to the expenditure in providing those facilities. Each and every allegation denied with regard to the unfair trade and restrictive trade practices or deficiency in service. The OP did not have commercial eye.  With the reply material has been annexed that the school is among top rated schools of Chandigarh.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         The complainants filed rejoinder reiterating their claim as maintained in the original complaint.  The facts stated in the complaint were reaffirmed.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5.         At the very outset, it is pertinent to take note of here that one of the grouses of the complainants is, higher fee is being charged contrary to the relevant instructions or norms framed by the competent authority. However, in support of the contention, no document has seen the light of the day showing what is standard of fees prescribed by the competent authority and what over charge the OP had made so as to say that payment had been taken, over and above the settled standard fee. Such material is wanting from the record. Therefore, with mere oral submissions, we feel that this Forum is not bestowed with the powers to fix the standard of fee and then to hold that overpayment was taken. We are functus officio in the manner. Had there been any prescribed standard of fee and thereafter overcharge of it by the OP, we could have assumed the jurisdiction with regard to the unfair trade practice or say over charging. In the absence of standardization document on record, we are of the firm opinion that we cannot have a look into this aspect of the matter, being a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum set up under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6.         A summary glance of the record speaks of the fact that the students are being compelled to buy material from the school itself and it is being done under pressure. Therefore, it tantamounts to restrictive trade practice for which this Forum retains the jurisdiction.  Now let us examine the documents produced on record with regard to this ground of restrictive trade practice.
7.         Paragraph No.5 of the consumer complaint shows, the complainants were forced to purchase annual material for their minor daughters only from the school and OP in an arbitrary manner vide circular had demanded Rs.3,000/- from the complainants on account of annual material fee. The said allegations are supported in the form of affidavits of the parents of the children i.e. the complainants.  True it is that these allegations were denied in the reply as well as counter affidavit furnished.  In this scenario, the learned counsel for the OP argued that this Forum cannot make detailed enquiry for the reasons that there is oath against oath.  We respectfully have a discordant opinion with the contention raised.  By and large in every case there is a counter affidavit. That does not mean it requires detailed investigation, but, the reliability of the affidavits furnished with attending circumstances can be looked into in order to pass any direction or order.
8.         We shall now scan the material on record on the ground of restrictive trade practice. The complainants had furnished separate affidavits on this point of fact and there is one affidavit from the side of the OP i.e. of the Principal.  Two students of the school of the OP felt aggrieved. They had also made the payment. In this situation, the onus shifted to the OP i.e. the school to have collected the affidavits of the guardians or parents of other children to say that no such restrictive trade practice is being employed in their school vide which the parents are being compelled to purchase annual material only from the school. There is reliability to the affidavits furnished by the complainants and they are the consumers of the OP and in such like situation, the only way out to rebut or falsify those affidavits was in the form of affidavits of the natural guardians of the students of the school of the OP.  In the absence of such counter affidavits, there is reliability and the affidavits furnished by the complainants are believable ones.  We hold and record such like conclusion on this restrictive trade practice employed by the OP. 
9.         The second point which we take up for discussion is on 11.1.2017 the bus of the OP met with an accident in which the daughter of the complainant No.1 namely Manya was one of the occupants.  Rash and negligent driving case was registered. It was also highlighted that as per circular of instructions from the Education Department, UT, Chandigarh and judicial verdict, the school has to ensure the safety of the children.  The circular enshrined that in the school bus lady attendants have to travel alongwith students, proper and regular training, GPS system and cameras have to be installed in all buses, accompanying teachers and male attendants. Admittedly, the existence of these instructions, rules or verdict or say circular orders are undisputed before this Forum. In such like situation, the only point in controversy is whether these instructions were being followed while plying the school buses or not?
10.         We shall refer here to the recitals of copy of FIR No.10 dated 11.1.2017 under Sections 279/337 IPC which shows that the school bus had met with an accident.  It is also made out from the report made by Inspector SHO P.S. Maloya whereby request was made to the State Transport Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh to cancel the permit of the bus No.CH-01-TA 4360. The recitals contained are the bus was being driven in a negligent manner and many school children were sitting and they sustained injuries and were hospitalized. The complainants had sworn in affidavits that norms were not being followed viz. GPS system, lady and male attendants. The complainants are the consumers of the OP. They are the persons aggrieved.  A general affidavit of the Principal of the OP has been filed whereby these allegations were denied.   The OP was in possession of the name of the lady attendant and her appointment order, male attendant and his appointment order. However, no such record has been produced that they got employed the lady or male attendants in the school bus and used to disburse the salary to them. In the absence of this record, affidavits furnished by the complainants appear to be more convincing and believable that the instructions were being flagrantly violated. If GPS system was installed in the bus, affidavit from the driver or say conductor or any student could have been obtained and furnished to show the presence of lady and male attendants alongwith the installation of GPS system in the bus. This evidence was in possession of the OP, but, they have not made any disclosure on this point nor had taken the affidavits. In this situation, violation of safety norms is writ large. The complainants have also produced on record the list of the children travelling in the bus, injuries suffered by them and this fact was also not disputed. It is also in the affidavits of the complainants that no information was given to them meaning thereby in the case of children who are minors and unable to take care of themselves, the OP even after having been paid the security fee of the children, have not taken any steps to ensure their safety in the event of accident of the school bus.  The conclusion is OP was lacking off the parental authority of school to take proper care of children.  There is also Annexure OP-5 that no major injury was suffered.  There is also a list of students who were travelling in the bus and some were found normal and some had some minor problems in the accident.  The record that the school is one of the top rated schools in Chandigarh will not exonerate its liability of restrictive trade practice or to say deficiency in service despite the fact that they have been paid for it by the consumers.  Had there been any truth in the version of the OP, it could have brought the parents of the students rebutting the allegations made in the complaint.  The affidavit of the Principal is not suffice to rebut the affidavits furnished by the complainants.
11.         There is also a notification dated 8.12.2015 which enforces the standards which have to be kept in transport system wherein the students are carried who are minor and dependent upon the help of other persons. We record this finding that there is deficiency in service and negligence on this point too.  It was a sensitive matter and any major and fatal accident could have taken place.  Therefore, some punitive damages needs to be passed against the OP.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under:-

1. To immediately discontinue the restrictive trade practice of forcing the complainants to purchase the annual material for their children from the school only.
2. To strictly ensure compliance of instructions, rules or notifications with regard to the safe transportation policy for students.
3. To pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants, which shall be shared by them in the ratio of 50:50, with regard to the restrictive trade practice employed by it.
4. To pay compensation, inclusive of punitive damages, of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac only) to the complainants, which shall be shared by them in the ratio of 50:50, for deficiency in service with regard to safety of minor children, mental agony and harassment caused to them;
5. To pay to the complainants Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation, which shall be shared by them in the ratio of 50:50.

13.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(iii) & (iv) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
26/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President