Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/329/2019

Balbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Public School - Opp.Party(s)

Akhil Bhasin

03 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.329 of 2019

Date of Instt.:14.08.2019

Date of Decision: 03.03.2020.

 

Balbir Singh son of Sh.Baldev Singh, resident of village Bodhni, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                              …….Complainant.                                            Versus

 

1.Delhi Public School, Jyotisar, District Kurukshetra through its President/Manager.

2.Delhi Public School, Jyotisar, District Kurukshetra through   its Head Teacher/Principal.

3.M/s Jagdish Book Depot, Birla Mandir Chowk,District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor/Partner.

….…Opposite parties.

 

              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer

               Protection Act.

 

Before    Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

              Ms. Neelam, Member.

              Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.   

             

Present:  Sh.Akhil Bhasin Advocate for the complainant.

               Complaint against OP No.1 and 2 already withdrawn.

               Sh.Sat Parkash  Singh Advocate for OP No.3.

.

ORDER

               

            This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Bablbir Singh   Delhi Public School etc -the opposite parties.

2.           The brief facts of the complaint are that the the son of the complainant namely Vishavjeet Singh took admission in the school of OP No.1 and 2 in class 7^th and as per instructions of the OP No.1 and 2 , the comlpainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- vide receipt No.1629 dated 11.02.2019 as fee vide cheque No.00459 dated 11.02.2019. It is averred that as per instrcutions of the staff of the OP no.1 and 2, the complainant purchased the books from the OP No.3 and paid a sum of Rs.5043/-  to the Op no.3 in the last week of March 2019.  When son of the complainant  attended the class of 7^th standard in the school, staff/teachers of OP No.1 and 2 started forcing the son of the complainant to join the evening tutions at the residence of the teachers and when the son of the complainant did not follow the orders of the teachers, they started mentally harasing the son of the complainant.  Due to intense pressure on the child, the health of the child started deteriorating and the son of the complainant remained ill for many days and was not able to attend the school and when the family of the ocmlainant visited the doctor, and as per guidelines of the doctors, complainant asked for the reason of his poor health, then  the child  told that the teachers of the OP No.1 and 2 are forcing him to join the tution   in the evening at their esidence and are harasisng him in the classes. The complainant visited the school and requested the teachers of the school not to harass the child but in vain and ultimately the child was withdrawn  from the  school of OPNo.1 and 2 by the complainant. The complainant requested the OP No.1 and 2 to  refund the fee paid by him but the OP No.1 and 2 refused to refund the fee paid by the complainant.  The complainant contacted the OP No.3 and requested to receive back  the books which were purchased by him for his child on the instructions of OP No.1 and 2., but OP  No.3 refused to receive back the  back.  However, on the request of the complainant, the OP No.3 kept the books with him and said that the amount would be returned to him within a week  on sale of the books but lateron OP No.3 clearly refused to return the payment of the books and also refused to return books  to him. This, act on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services and thus the coplainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency inservices on thepart of the OPs and prayed that OP No.1 and 2 be directed to return the amount of Rs.25,000/- received by them as fee and OP No.3 be directed to return the amount of Rs.5043/- received by OPNo.3 as cost of the books alongwith the compensation for the mental harassment caused to him.

 

3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. The complainant made a statemnent dated 27.09.2019 whereby he withdrew the complaint against OP No.1 and 2. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn against OP No.1 and 2.

 

4.           OP No.3 appeared and  filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  OP no.3  has stated that the complainant did not return the books to him  in the same position, rather the same were used and marked by the student and teachers and due to this reason the answering OP is not able to get back the same as the same are not resalable.  The OP No.3 has stated that the present complaint has been filed to harass the answering OP No.3. It is denied that the books were purchased by the complainant from the OP no.3 at the instructions of OP No.1 and 2. The OP No.3 never refused to return the books as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant has no loss as alleged. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and preliminary objections have been raised that the present complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.           The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

 

6.           On the other hand, OP no.3  closed his evidence after tendering the documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2.

 

7.           During the pendency of the complaint, compromise has been effected between the complainant and OP No.1 and 2. The complainant gave statement dated 27.09.2019 before this Forum and withdraw the complaint against OP No.1 and 2.Therefore, complaint qua OP No.1 and 2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.09.2019.

 

8.           We have heard the learne dcounsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

9.           The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that he got his son Vishavjeet Singh admitted in the school of OP no.1 and 2 and paid Rs.25,000/- as fee. He further argued  that he purchased books worth Rs.5043/- from the OP No.3 at the instructions of OP No.1 and 2. The son of the complainant started attending the class in the school, but the teachers of OP No.1 and 2 started forcing him to attend the evening tuition classes at the residence and due to this reason  health of the son of the complainant started deteriorating and when the complainant asked his son about this, he told that the teachers are harassing him and due to this reason the child was withdrawn from the school of OPNo.1 and 2. He asked for refund of fee of Rs.25,000/- but the OP No.1 and 2 refused to return the same and likewise the OP No.3 also refused to get back the books and return of Rs.5043/- and this act on thepart of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services.

 

10.         The learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that there is no deficiency in services on the partg of OP No.3. The OP No.3 had given new books to the complainant after receiving money. After 10 days, the complainant came to the shop of OP no.3 and gave all the books to OP No.3. OP No.3 refused to take back the books but the complainant at that time  said that after books are sold in re-sale,  payment be given to the complainant. Now, the second hand books could not be sold by the OP No.3.  The learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that he ready to give back the books to the complainant but there is no deficiency in services on the part of the  OP No.3.

 

 

11.         After hearing the rival contentions of both the  learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that son of the complainant was admitted by him in the 7^th standard of the school of OP No.1 and 2. He purchased the books worth Rs.5043/-from the OP No.3. The complainant withdrew his son from the school of OP No.1 and 2  and he demanded back the fee paid by him worthn Rs.25000/-Likewise, he demanded back Rs.5043/- from OPNo.3 as cost of the books, but the OP No.3 also refused to return the amount.

 

12.         In the presernt complaint, the complainant has alleged that he   purchased the books at the instance of OP No.1 and 2 from the shop of OP no.3. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant made a statement for withdrawal of complaint qua OP No.1 and 2 and conseqauently, the present complaint was dismissed as withdrawn qua Op no.1 and 2 vide order dated  27.09.2019.  Therefore, the factum of purchasing the books by the comlpainant at the instance of OP No.1 and 2 from OP No.3  is not proved at all. Further, the complainant  has allged that the OP  No.3 gave the books to the OP No.3 and the OP no.3 assured  the return the amount after a week. But this fact is also not proved. The OPNo.3 has come with a clear stand that the books have been left by the complainant  and the books  have been used and marked by the  child and teachers and the same are not in a position of re-sale. The perusal of docments Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 show that the books have been marked  at various places and same are not in a position of re-sale, therefore, the OP No.3 was not in a position to take back the books and to refund the cost of the books because , books in question were not in a position of re-sale. Thus, question of  any deficiency in servicves on the part of the OP No.3 or unfair trade pracrtice does not arises at all.

 

13.         So, in view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we do not see any merit in the present complaint and consequently dismiss the same without any relief to the complainant. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 03.03.2020.                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                   President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),          (Neelam)            

Member                                 Member.