NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4628/2010

K. RAJENDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

CSI EWART MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

06 Aug 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4628 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 12/10/2010 in Appeal No. 127/2007 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
1. K. RAJENDRAN
36/9, B1 Kalamegam Street Extension, East Tambaram
Chennai - 59
Tamil Nadu
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. CSI EWART MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR.
Purasawalkkam
Chennai - 84
Tamil Nadu
2. THE MANAGER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, CSI EWART MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
Purasawalkkam
Chennai - 84
Tamil Nadu
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :
NEMO

Dated : 06 Aug 2012
ORDER

This revision petition is against the order dated 12.10.2010 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal No. 127 of 2007. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) (in short, he District Forum. The District Forum had by its aforesaid order dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner (complainant before the District Forum) was that when he sought admission in early February 2001 to CSI Ewart Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Purasawalakkam, Chennai-84 for his second daughter, he was coerced to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the School ew Auditorium Project (NAP) In addition to the aforesaid amount, he was also required to pay Rs.5,220/- towards tuition fee and special fees, which included Rs.2,500/- towards Building Fund. He claimed that he sought to see the Principal of the school to seek clarification on two demands for payment for school building but was denied appointment. Thereafter, he wrote to the Principal and awaited clarification before paying the school fees. However, no clarification was received and by his letters dated 05.07.2001 and 18.07.2001 he requested refund of Rs.25,000/- that he had paid for admission of his daughter. In response, the School authorities replied through their Advocate that the complainant was not entitled to refund of the aforesaid Rs.25,000/- because he had paid it as a donation. He further alleged that as a result of these developments, his elder daughter, who was already studying in the same School, had to be withdrawn from the school and he had to incur additional expenditure. to get both his daughters admitted to another school. Alleging deficiency in service, he thus filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from 07.02.2001 to 06.02.2003, Rs.2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, hardship etc. and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint. 3. The complaint was contested by the School authorities mainly on the ground that the sum of Rs.25,000/- paid by the complainant was a voluntary donation towards the New Auditorium Project of the School and had nothing to do with the regular fees and special fees payable by a child on admission to the school. Since the payment of Rs.25,000/- was by way of donation, the School had informed the complainant through its Advocate that the amount could not be refunded though he did not pursue admission of his second daughter to the school, for which he had made this donation. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and documentary evidence, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission also dismissed the complainant appeal, mainly on the ground that the sum of Rs.25,000/- paid by the complainant to the School was by way of a voluntary donation and, hence, no deficiency in service could be attributed to the School in not refunding the said amount. 5. We have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person but did not have the opportunity of hearing any of the respondents, who chose not to appear despite having duly received the notice for hearing and acknowledged it. 6. The petitioner/complainant has produced a copy of the slip issued by the school when he went in early February 2001 to seek his second daughter admission to the Lower Kindergarten (LKG). It is useful to reproduce the slip in its entirety. It reads as under: CSI EWART SCHOOL, CHENNAI-84 NEW AUDITORIUM PROJECT (NAP): Rs.25,000/- Payment should be made only by DEMAND DRAFT drawn in favour of C.S.I. EWART SCHOOL, CHENNAI-84 on 7.2.2001 at 10-12 a.m. UNIFORM: PAYMENT SHOULD BE BY CASH ONLY on .2001 GIRLS - Rs.810/-} } 4 Sets BOYS - Rs.610/-} After the payment of N.A.P. by D.D. and UNIFORM by CASH only the FEES will be accepted. BUS: The school bus facility is available. Please meet the concerned clerk. BUS FEES - Rs.200/- per month VAN FEES - Rs.350/- per month (Egmore, Perimet & Vepery only) TUITION FEES: Rs.5,220/- The FEES of Rs.5220/- SHOULD BE PAID BY A SEPARATE D.D. drawn in favour of C.S.I. EWART SCHOOL, CHENNAI-84 on 12.2.2001 7. A plain reading of the slip, which was produced by the complainant before the District Forum, would clearly show that the so-called donation of Rs.25,000/- for the New Auditorium Project was a pre-condition for acceptance of the tuition fees in view of the condition, fter the payment of N.A.P. by D.D. and UNIFORM by CASH only the FEES will be accepted It is also seen from the said notice that for some unstated reason the School demanded payment of the fees for uniform in cash though the payments for the so called donation and tuition fees were to be made by demand drafts. In any case, the element of coercion in collecting the onationfor the New Auditorium Project of the School is writ large on this document. The failure of the respondents/School authorities to remain present before us at the time of hearing has also to be construed adversely against them. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we partly allow the revision petition and direct the respondent School (through its Principal) to refund to the petitioner Rs.25,000/- that it collected from the petitioner through coercion as a pre-requisite for admission of his second daughter to the LKG class in February, 2001 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation, within four weeks of the date of this order. In addition, the School will also pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the petitioner within the said period.

 
......................
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
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.