Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1025

VENKATESHWAR GOBAL SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAMAN DEEP SINGH DHIR - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 04.05.2017

First Appeal No. 1025/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 01.08.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 839/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North-West) CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088)

In the matter of:

Venkateshwar Global School

Through its Principal

At Sector-13 Rohini

Delhi-85                                          .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

      Sh. Damandeep Singh Dhir

At A-3/708, Printers Aptts,

      Sector-13, Rohini

      Delhi-85                                         ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

1.     Arguments on the application for condonation of delay, heard.
2.     Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 68 days. Impugned orders are dated 01.08.2012 and the limitation period had expired on 01.09.2012. Contention of the applicant/appellant is that the impugned orders were communicated to him only on 08.10.2012. Perusal of the record shows that the impugned orders were dispatched to the appellant under a registered letter on 04.10.2012. In the circumstances, I have no reasons to disbelieve the contention putforth by the appellant. Application for condonation of delay is hence allowed. The delay of 68 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
3.     At this stage arguments addressed at the counsel for the appellant Sh. Ram Singh Advocate, heard.
4.     Facts in brief of the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent in the District Forum are that the daughter of the complainant was admitted to Venkateshwar Global School (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP’) on 27.12.2007 in a pre-nursery class. An amount of Rs. 17,300/- was admittedly deposited by the complainant. Complainant had applied for admission of his daughter in other schools. After getting the admission in a school of his own choice, the complainant vide his letter dated 03.03.2008 requested the OP for cancellation of admission and refund of the aforesaid fee. OP did not reply.
5.     Defence raised by the OP was that as per guidelines laid by the Department of Education of Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 24.11.2007, complainant was required to apply for refund within a period of one month of its deposit.
6.     Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint observing as under:

On perusal of documents placed at record and pleadings of the parties, it is observed from the documents that complainant had written letter for refund before start of the session informing the institute that their child got admission in the school of her choice. She has also not attended even a single class after getting the admission. We have also certain judgments announced by the National Commission where in it is referred to public notice issued by UGC to all institutes directing them to refund money of the students for the period institute has not been attended. The similar notification has been issued by All India Council for Technical Education also vide public notice DPG/06(02)/2009. Hon’ble National Commission has also held that no money can be retained towards the services when services not rendered. We may also refer to the land mark judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Usmania Islamia Academy of Educationv/sState of Karnataka,AIR 203 SC 3724, wherein court has categorically specified that institute cannot hold the money for which services have not been rendered.

Keeping in view all the above circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Apex Court, we are convinced that complainant is entitled to get the refund of fee paid to OPs for which she has not attended any class and it was informed to the OPs well before the start of session. Hence, we direct OP to refund an amount of Rs. 17,100/- allowing institute to retain Rs. 200/- towards admission fee. OP also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- with cost of litigation Rs. 5000/-.

 

7.     Guidelines referred to by the complainant/appellant are reproduced below:

“13…If any parent or guardian, after depositing the full fee for admission of a child, chooses to withdraw the child from the school within one month from the date of the admission, then the school may retain the Registration Charges, Admission Fee and the tuition fee for one month only, and shall refund all other amounts of fee or other charges.”

 

8.         The words “within one month from the date of admission” refers to the admission actually having taken place. In other words, it refers to the start of the classes. It was for this reason that the school was entitled to retain tuition fee for one month as well. In the present case the classes had not even started. Complainant applied for refund of the fees before the classes could start.
9.         In view of the discussions above, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
10. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)