Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/373

C SASIDHARAN PILLAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHRUV EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST - Opp.Party(s)

REGHUKUMAR

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.373/14

JUDGMENT DATED:12.06.2015

 

PRESENT:

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI                     -           PRESIDENT

 

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                      -            MEMBER

 

C.Sasidharan Pillai, Sivam,                                         -           Appellant /Complainant         

Sreekanteswaram, Thiruvananthapuram. 

 

(By Adv: Sri. S.Reghukumar)

                                                                                                                                                            Vs

 

1. DHRUV Educational And Charitable Trust,

    Madathil Lane, Mukkolackal,

    Thiruvananthapuram-695 043.

    Represented by its Director Asha Panicker.

 

2.  Michael Brown, Principal, Gurukul,

     Madathil Lane, Mokkolackal,

     Thiruvananthapuram-695 043.                               -           Respondents/ Opposite parties

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE.SHRI. P.Q.BARKATHALI- PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in O.P.463/2014 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Forum by order dated, January 31, 2014.

 

2.         The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief  is this:

Prem Nair, son of the complainant was studying in Loyolo School, Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram lured by the advertisement made by the opposite parties in Newspapers complainant admitted his son in “Gurukul School” in 9^th standard of the opposite parties.  Complainant paid Rs.49,275/- on 29/04/2004, Rs.5,050/- on 18/06/2004 and Rs.7,290/- on 21/08/2004.  Till July, 2004, there were some foreign teachers and all of them left.  There were frequent changes of teachers.  At the time of admission complainant was told that there was 7 students in the class and that they will admit 8 students more.    But there were only 3 students in the class including the son of complainant.  It is understood that Opposite parties were not following ICSE syllabus.  The Director of 1^st opposite party school told the complainant that she is unable to conduct 9^th standard with the present staff strength.  Therefore complainant decided to shift his son to another school.    When he requested for transfer certificate, opposite parties insisted for a settlement voucher.  The complainant found out that opposite parties school is not a recognized one.  Therefore only with much difficulty the son of the complainant got admission in St.Mary’s Residential School.  The son of the complainant had to struggle hard to keep abreast with the syllabus as he joined later.  Therefore  opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and there is deficiency of service on their part .  Complainant claimed refund of the amount paid by him and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

 

3.         The 1^st opposite party is M/s.DHRUV Educational And Charitable Institution which is represented by its Director.  2^nd opposite party is Michael Brown, the Principal of the school.  Second opposite party remained absent before the Forum.  The 1^st opposite party in his version contented thus before the Forum.

  The opposite parties have conducted classes I to VIII for which no sanction is necessary.  Complainant had  suddenly withdrawn  his son from the school for which  opposite parties are not responsible.  The complainant had to pay Rs.19,685/- more.  When a student is withdrawn during the middle of an academic year the student is liable to pay the entire fees of that academic year.  Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed. 

 

4.         Complainant was examined as PW 1 and Ext P1 to Ext.P9(a) were  marked for the complainant and 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 to Ext.D7 were  marked on the side of 1^st opposite party before the Forum.   2^nd opposite party remained absent.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The Bench consisting of President and Member, Smt.Liju B Nair awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-  and directed the  opposite parties to refund the fees Rs.61,615/-. 

But the Member, Mrs.Sathi awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- .  The complainant has come up in appeal challenging the judgment of Majority Bench in awarding a compensation of Rs.25,000/- alone.

 

6.         Heard both the counsels.

 

7.         The only question which arises for consideration is what is the compensation the complainant is entitled to?

 

8.         The finding of the Forum that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is not challenged in this appeal.  The finding of the Forum that complainant is entitled to refund of the fees paid is also not challenged.  The only question for consideration is regarding the compensation.

 

9.         In the present case attracted by the advertisement made by opposite parties complainant obtained release from a respectable school to admit his son in the school of opposite parties.  Admittedly the school of opposite parties is not a recognized school.  Complainant with much difficulty got admission for his son in St.Mary’s Residential School during the middle of an academic year.  Taking into account the difficulties experienced by PW1 I feel that the compensation awarded by the Member Mrs.Sathi Rs.2,00,000/- would be reasonable.   

 

In the result, appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum finding that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties is confirmed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.61,615/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with the same interest and a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the complaint as ordered by the Member Mrs.Sathi.  In this appeal appellant is entitled to a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI- PRESIDENT

VL.

V.V. JOSE- MEMBER