Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/198/2021

Gobinderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DPS Play School - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/198/2021
Date of Institution	:	26/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	28/12/2021

 

Gobinderjit Singh son of Sh.Balbir Singh r/o 1441, Sector 52, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. DPS Play School through its Principal, VIP Road Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Punjab).
2. Delhi Public School Private Limited through its Managing Director, 111-1^st floor, Nelkanth Plaza, Commercial belt, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201308.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Anshul Kukreja, Counsel for complainant.
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the nephew of the complainant namely i.e. Shabadpreet Singh s/o Sh.Abhijinder Singh and Master Sidhakpreet Singh s/o of the complainant, deposited refundable security amount of Rs.3000/- for each of the children for security admission to Nursery class. Copy of the receipt which is annexed as Annexure C-1. As per complainant, the school was not found upto mark matching with standards committed, healthy atmosphere etc. as required for upbringing of the children. The complainant preferred to remove both of the children from the school of Opposite Party No.1 in March, 2019. However, on removal of the children, the Opposite Parties assured to refund the security amount with in short period. As per complainant, the Opposite Parties kept lingering on the matter and subsequently refused to pay the security amount. The complainant written requests, various Whatsapp messages, personal visits and emails on 27.08.2019 and 13.09.2019 remained futile. Copies of the above said messages which are annexed as Annexure C-2 to C-4.

         As per complaint, the Opposite Parties failed to refund the security amount. The complainant served the legal notice to the Opposite Parties. Copies of legal notice which are annexed as Annexure C-6 to C-8. However, the Opposite Party No.2 is having control over the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 had admittedly permitted the Opposite Party No.1 to use the name of DPS to represent affiliation of the Opposite Party No.1 with the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, alleging that the Opposite Parties have indulged clearly in unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing service, the complainant filed this present complaint.

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party No.1, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 06.07.2021.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party No.2, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 12.10.2021.
4.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of para 1 of the complaint, it is observed that the complainant has mentioned that he has deposited refundable security amount of Rs.3000/- for each of the two children. He has also mentioned that he is enclosing the fee receipts showing security amount payment as appended at Annexure C-1. On perusal of Annexure C-1, it is observed that the said receipt is not in the name of the son of the complainant. The name of the son of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint is Master Sidhakpreet Singh, where as the name mentioned in the Annexure C-1, is Shabadpreet Singh. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any document that he is competent to file the complaint on behalf of his nephew. Though the complainant has mentioned that for avoiding multiple litigation, a single complaint is liable to be filed for which the second complainant has given express consent, but the same consent has not found in records. Hence, we are not in a position to order refund of security fee and he has failed to prove his case.
7.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/12/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	President