Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/261

Anmol Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi International School - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       261

Date of Institution :  14.08.2017

Date of Decision :    19.12.2017

 

1. Anmol Bajaj minor aged 16 years s/o Raj Kumar Bajaj, through his natural guardian and real father Raj Kumar Bajaj/complainant no.2.
2. Raj Kumar Bajaj aged 47 years son of Harish Kumar.
3. Rajni Bajaj aged 43 years, wife of Raj Kumar Bajaj.

 All residents of Street No.2, Baba Farid Nagar, Kameana Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                                                        .....Complainants

Versus

1. Delhi International School, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot through its Principal.
2. Delhi International School, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot through its Chairman.

                                                                           .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Ms. Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs,

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OPs to refund the fee amount of Rs.28,250/-

 

alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by complainants besides litigation expenses.

2                                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that Anmol Bajaj/complainant no. 1 is minor son of complainant no. 2 and complainant no.3 and after taking exams of standard 10^th in April 2017, he got admission in standard 10+1 in non medical stream in the school of OPs. Vide receipt no.44513 dated 23.04.2017, they paid Rs.22,450/- with OPs as tuition fees; admission fees, annual charges, examination charges and science practical fees etc and they also got deposited Rs.5800/-from them as monthly fees for the month of May-June, 2017. It is submitted that after declaration of result of 10^th standard, OPs refused to allow complainant no.1 to continue in non medical stream and forced him to either change the subject or to get admission somewhere else in another school and also promised to refund all the charges got deposited by complainants with them and on assurance of OPs, complainant no.2 moved application before OPs on 20.07.2017 with request to refund all the charges got deposited by OPs from complainants on account of admission of their ward in standard 10+1 in non medical stream, but they declined to accept his genuine request. Thereafter, OPs refunded the amount of Rs.7,350/-as annual charges and withheld the remaining amount. Complainant also served legal notice dated 22.07.2017 to OPs, but that also bore no fruit. All this act of OPs has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainants, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainants have prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation for inconvenience, harassment, mental agony and monetary loss besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.08.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint relates to the educational matter and is beyond the purview of this Forum and moreover, for such like grievances, a separate Courts are established. It is asserted that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material fact that school granted the provisional admission to him in standard 10+1 in non medical stream on the basis of interview cum screen test as 10^th standard result was not declared. Provision admission was granted on the basis of interview cum screening test on condition that provisional admission would be confirmed only when he/she obtains requisite qualifying CGPA for that stream which in present case of complainant is 8.5 CGPA. At the time of giving provisional admission in the particular stream, it was made clear to the parents that in case, a student is unable to score the minimum qualifying marks in board result of 10^th standard, then, in that case, school holds the right to either cancel the admission or to change the stream of student depending upon the marks scored by the students in the board exams and in pursuant to the undertaking given by the parents of complainant no. 1, that in case their ward fails to score qualifying marks in Board for the particular stream opted at the time of provision admission, the school may change the stream of student to which the parents would have no objection. In present case also, complainants had given no objection to the school for changing the stream of complainant no. 1 if he fails to score the requisite marks making him eligible for continuing in the non medical stream and if complainant withdraws the child from the school, then in that case, no refund of fees or any other charges would be returned. After declaration of 10^th class result, complainant no.1 failed to score 8.5 CGPA, the qualifying marks required for non medical stream. It is averred that mother of complainant no.1 met the Principal on 20.07.2017 and told that their son has taken admission in some other school and also asked for refund of admission fees to which Principal apprised that as per rules, it is not possible as complainant had withdrawn his ward from the school. It is further averred that before withdrawing their ward from school, complainant no.2 and 3, neither gave one month notice to the answering OP nor deposited one month fee in lieu of notice. Moreover, fees once deposited is not refundable and this condition is clearly stipulated in Admission Form. Complainant repeatedly requested for some consideration to lessen the financial burden, though only on humanitarian grounds, application of complainant no.3 was considered by OP-1 only to the extent of refund of Annual charges and the examination fee and complainant no.3 deceitfully took away the application and left the school without handing over the same to the accounts department and question of any action on said application does not arise at all and thereafter, complainants never turned up again. Legal notice sent by complainants is false and is on flimsy grounds. On merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainants being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. However, it is admitted by Ops that Rs.22,450/-were deposited by complainants against provisional admission. It is averred that as per rules, complainants no.1 is not entitled to continue in Non Medical stream as after declaration of result of 10^th standard, he failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks required for non medical stream. Even at the time of provisional admission, this fact of requirement of 8.5 CGPA was in the knowledge of all complainants and they themselves gave No Objection to OPs to change the stream in case their ward fails to secure 8.5 CGPA. Allegations of complainant that OPs forced him to shift to commerce stream are totally false. It is also denied that school ever promised to refund all the charges received by them. School has never cancelled the admission of complainant no.1 and therefore, complainants are not entitled for any refund. It is only on repeated requests of complainant for some consideration, only on humanitarian grounds to lessen the financial burden of complainant, complainant no.3 was advised to go to accounts department with application on which remarks were given by OP-1, but complainant deceitfully took away the application and left the school without handing over the application to accounts departments and therefore, question of any action on it does not arise at all. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.

5                                          Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                    In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of V C Chacko   as Ex. OP-4 and documents Ex OP-1 to OP-3  and then, closed the evidence.

7.                                           Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant no. 1 is the minor son of complainant no. 2 and complainant no.3, who after taking exams of standard 10^th in April 2017,  got admission in standard 10+1 in non medical stream in the school of OPs. Vide receipt no.44513 dated 23.04.2017, they paid Rs.22,450/- as tuition fees; admission fees, annual charges, examination charges and science practical fees etc and they also got deposited Rs.5800/-from them as monthly fees for the month of May-June, 2017.  Ld counsel for complainant submitted that after declaration of result of 10^th standard, OPs refused to allow complainant no.1 to continue in non medical stream and forced him either to change the subject or to get admission somewhere else in another school and also promised to refund all the charges deposited by complainants with them and on assurance of OPs, complainant no.2 moved application before OPs on 20.07.2017 with request to refund all the charges, but they declined to accept his genuine request. Thereafter, OPs refunded the amount of Rs.7,350/-as annual charges and withheld the remaining amount. Complainant also served legal notice dated 22.07.2017 to OPs, but that also bore no fruit. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to this act of OPs, complainants had to suffer harassment, inconvenience and monetary loss. The complainants also served legal notice OPs, but OPs gave a false reply. Prayer for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses is made.

8                                            To controvert the allegations of complainants, ld counsel for OPs argued that complainants are not the consumers of OPs as present matter relates to education and it is beyond the purview of this Forum. It is asserted that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed that school granted the provisional admission to him in standard 10+1 in non medical stream on the basis of interview cum screen test as 10^th standard result was not declared. Provision admission was granted on the basis of interview cum screening test on condition that provisional admission would be confirmed only when he/she obtains requisite qualifying CGPA for that stream which in present case of complainant is 8.5 CGPA. At the time of giving provisional admission in the particular stream, it was made clear to the parents that in case, a student is unable to score the minimum qualifying marks in board result of 10^th standard, then, in that case, school holds the right to either cancel the admission or to change the stream of student depending upon the marks scored by the students in the board exams and in pursuant to the undertaking given by the parents of complainant no. 1, that in case their ward fails to score qualifying marks in Board for the particular stream opted at the time of provision admission, the school may change the stream of student to which the parents would have no objection. In present case also, complainants had given no objection to the school for changing the stream of complainant no. 1 if he fails to score the requisite marks making him eligible for continuing in the non medical stream and if complainant withdraws the child from the school, then in that case, no refund of fees or any other charges would be returned. After declaration of 10^th class result, complainant no.1 failed to score 8.5 CGPA, the qualifying marks required for non medical stream. Complainant no.3 met the Principal on 20.07.2017 and told that their son has taken admission in some other school and asked for refund of admission fees to which Principal apprised that as per rules, it is not possible as complainant had withdrawn her ward from the school. It is further argued that before withdrawing their ward from school, complainant no.2 and 3, neither gave one month notice nor deposited one month fee in lieu of notice. Moreover, fees once deposited is not refundable and this condition is clearly stipulated in Admission Form. Complainant repeatedly requested for some consideration to lessen the financial burden and only on humanitarian grounds, application of complainant no.3 was considered by OP-1 only to the extent of refund of Annual charges and the examination fee, but complainant no.3 deceitfully took away the application and left the school without handing over the same to the accounts department and thus, question of any action on said application does not arise at all and thereafter, complainants never turned up again. Legal notice sent by complainants is false and is on flimsy grounds. It is further argued by ld counsel for Ops that Rs.22,450/-were deposited by complainants against provisional admission and as per rules, complainants no.1 is not entitled to continue in Non Medical stream as after declaration of result of 10^th standard, he failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks required for non medical stream. Even at the time of provisional admission, this fact of requirement of 8.5 CGPA was in the knowledge of all complainants and they themselves gave No Objection to OPs to change the stream in case their ward fails to secure 8.5 CGPA. Allegations of complainant that OPs forced him to shift to commerce stream are totally false. It is denied that school ever promised to refund all the charges received by them and school has never cancelled the admission of complainant no.1 and therefore, complainants are not entitled for any refund. It is further argued that only on request of complainant for some consideration, to lessen the financial burden of complainant, OP-1 advised her to go to accounts department with application on which remarks were given by OP-1, but complainant deceitfully took away the application and left the school without handing over the same to accounts departments and therefore, question of any action on it does not arise at all. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and have requested for dismissal of present complaint.

9                                                     We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                              Careful perusal of the case file shows that it is the admitted case of parties that complainant no.1 was given admission in standard 10+1 of OPs and for this purpose, complainants paid Rs.22,450/- against proper receipt and also deposited Rs.5800/-as monthly fees for May June, but after declaration of result of tenth standard, OPs refused to continue his admission in non medical stream and forced him either to change the subject or to get admission in some other school. On assurance of OPs, complainants  no. 2, gave application on 20.07.2017 to OPs for refunding all charges got deposited by OPs from complainants on account of admission, but OPs refused to refund the same and allowed refund of only annual and examination charges of Rs.7350/-. As OPs did not confirm the admission to complainant no.1 in their school, therefore, complainants are entitled for refund of all charges deposited by them with OPs. Repeated requests and legal notice issued by complainants to OPs bore no result and all this caused harassment to them. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that only provision admission was granted to complainant no.1 on the basis of screening test subject to the condition that provisional admission would be confirmed only when he obtains requisite qualifying 8.5 CGPA for non medical stream and it would be considered cancelled if he fails to secure the minimum qualifying marks. Even, complainants had given no objection to the school for changing the stream of complainant no. 1, if he fails to bring the requisite marks making him eligible for continuing in the non medical stream and if complainant withdraws the child from the school, then in that case, no refund of fees or any other charges would be returned. After declaration of 10^th class result, it was found that complainant no.1 did not score 8.5 CGPA, the qualifying marks required for non medical stream. Complainant no.3 met the Principal on 20.07.2017 and told that their son has taken admission in some other school and asked for refund of admission fees to which Principal stated that as per rules, it is not possible as complainant had withdrawn her ward from the school. Moreover, before withdrawing their ward from school, complainant no.2 and 3, neither gave any one month notice nor deposited one month fee in lieu of notice. Further, fees once deposited is not refundable and this condition is clearly stipulated in Admission Form, but on request of complainant no.3 her application was considered by OP-1 only to the extent of refund of Annual charges and the examination fee, but she took away the same with her and left the school and did not turn up again thereafter. It is reiterated that allegations levelled by complainants are false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

11                                  There is no dispute that complainant no.1 was given admission in the school of OPs. It is also admitted by OPs that amount of Rs.22,450/-was received by them in lieu of giving admission to complainant no.1. ExC-2 clearly proves this fact. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant no. 3 has reiterated her grievance. Fact of deposit of monthly fees of Rs.5800/-is also proved in the light of receipt Ex C-3. Ex C-4 is the application written by complainant no.3 to OPs for refund of admission fees on which remarks are given in the hand of OPs that annual charges and examination fees by drawing the pen through word ‘admission’ written in present application. Legal notice Ex C-5 confirms the grievance suffered by complainants. On the contrary Ex OP-2 copy of receipt furnished by OPs themselves proves the fact that amount of Rs.22,450/-was deposited by complainants with OPs. Keeping in view document Ex C-4 where  OP-1 himself written words Annual Charges and Examination Fees which depicts itself that OPs allowed refund of only Rs.7,350/- and withheld the remaining amount and did not refund the same for no reasons. Action of OPs in not refunding the remaining amount out of total admission fees and monthly fees deposited by complainant;  amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Moreover, OPs have no right to impose the condition on complainants that provisional admission would be cancelled if their ward fails to score 8.5 CGPA and they would have every right to either cancel the admission or change the stream of students. Action of OPs in forcing the complainant no.1 to change the stream from non medical to commerce or to leave the school and get admission in some other school is also wrong. Leaving no other condition for complainants to get admission of their ward in some other school and then, withholding the admission  fees and did not allowing the entire refund to them amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.  Hence, in these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12                                            In the light of above discussion, complaint in hand is hereby allowed . OPs are ordered to refund the remaining amount out of Rs.22,450/- minus Rs.7,350/- already refunded by OPs to the complainants, got deposited by complainants on account of admission feess alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 14.08.2017 i.e from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainants as consolidated compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses incurred  by them. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainants shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 19.12.2018

 

Member                                      President

(Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)