BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 148/2008 Filed on 07/07/2008
Dated: 30..08..2017
Complainant:
Radhakrishnan, S/o Krishna Pillai, Sreekrishna, Netta, Pazhakutty-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.S. Vineeth Kumar)
Opposite parties:
1. Dhruv Educational and Charitable Trust, Madathil Lane, Mukkola, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director.
2. The Principal, ‘Gurukul’, Dhruv Educational and Charitable Trust, Madathil Lane, Mukkola, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Opp parties 1 & 2 by Adv. Roshan. S)
This C.C having been heard on 11..05..2017, the Forum on 30..08..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:
In this case the complainant desired to give the best quality education to his twins’ children and he was in search of an educational institution which provides such high quality education. Attracted by the advertisement of the opposite parties Educational Institution, the complainant along with his wife visited the school of the opposite parties. At that time opposite parties talked much about the methods they adopted to educate children in Gurukul System. They claimed that there are almost all modern facilities to mould the pupil to the best in every aspect. After having such impression, faith and belief upon their words, complainant admitted his children in the opposite parties institution. On 16/01/2006 the complainant remitted Rs. 70,000/- as required by the opposite parties towards registration fee, tuition fee, uniform fee, book and worksheet expense etc. And as directed by the opposite parties the complainant obtained transfer certificates of his children from their previous school ie Lourd Mount High School at Vattappara on 23/01/2006 and the same was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party on the very same day. The complainant also remitted Rs. 45,600/- on 10/4/2006 and Rs. 6,800/- on 21/8/2006 towards annual tuition fee, book fee, term fees etc. The complainant admitted his children in the opposite party school, but they could not give even an average standard of education offered by the institution like Government Schools. Thereby the academic standard of the students has gone down from the standard which they had earlier. Nobody can expect such a poor education from an institution which imposing exorbitant fees like the opposite party. Because of the poor quality of education they provided to the complainant’s children at the 4th standard, it was very difficult for the complainant to get admission to his children in the 5th standard in high standard school in Thiruvananthapuram City. The poor educational standard contrary to the promise made by the opposite parties, the complainant was forced to withdraw his children from the opposite parties school and thereby obtain transfer certificate from the school on 16/3/2017. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing the quality education as they promised and charged. The complainant approached this Forum for directing the opposite parties to repay Rs.1,22,400/- which collected from the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost.
2. The opposite parties accepted notice and entered appearance and filed version.
The opposite parties submitted that the school named Gurukul when the complainant’s son has studied is presently not run by the opposite parties. The opposite parties school was one of the leading school in the district of Thiruvananthapuram for the excellent training and coaching for the students. It is submitted that only the prescribed fees has been charged and collected from the complainant. The complainant has voluntarily paid the fees without any objection or protest. Before admitting the children, complainant read and understood the rules and regulations in the prospectus. The teachers working are well qualified and trained and also the teacher student’s ratio of the school is fixed as 1:6 for the purpose of individual care and attention. Special care and attention was given to children for giving high standard of education to all in order to complete with students of other highly recognized schools. In spite of imparting the test education it all depends how the students are absorbing the same. The complainant did not raised any complaint with respect to the quality of education in the opposite parties school before Lawyer’s notice issued to this opposite parties. The school was running without any grant or funding from the Government or outside agencies and are solely depending on school fees, deposits etc. The Gurukul School has got a good ranking by an international agency. The complainant has withdrawn his children voluntarily on his own accord for their convenience alone, which is evident from the letter dated 3/5/2007 issued by the wife of the complainant to opposite parties. When the complainant made such a request for withdrawal of his children this opposite party has duly issued transfer certificate to them. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite parties. No damages were sustained to the complainant due to any act of the opposite parties. The complainant’s children have studied for the entire academic year for which they paid the fees and hence the complainant is not entitled for refund of the fees paid. As per rules and regulations in the prospectus under the head withdrawals which states that generally withdrawal of students during school are not allowed, that normally if a student is to be withdrawn for reasons beyond the control of the parents / guardian, their calendar months notice must be given, that children who will not be returning for the next academic year must given written notice by the end of February, that admission fee, registration fee and other term fees will not be refunded if the students is withdrawn admission. The complainant has read understood accepted and signed the said rules. The complainant did not given prior notice to the opposite parties before withdrawal of his children. If students are withdrawn indiscriminately without any valid reason after admission, the management will not be in a position to maintain the teachers’ staff, transport facilities etc. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and additional affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party marked Exts. D1 & D2 through the complainant.
3. Issues:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite party’s side?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for the reliefs as sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): The complainant in this complaint attracted by the advertisement of the opposite parties complainant, took admission for his twins daughter in the opposite parties school. The Ext. P1 is the brochure of the opposite party. On 16/1/2006 complainant remitted Rs. 10,000/- on various heads as per Ext. P2 to the opposite parties. On 10/4/2006 complainant remitted Rs. 45,600/- as per Ext. P3 receipt. Again on 21/8/2006 Rs. 6800/- was remitted as per Ext. P4. But the opposite parties school despite collecting huge fee and other expenses failed in imparting education to its standard which they have offered. The complainant stated the low standard of eduction is due to maintaining the teachers without sufficient qualification, non-professional way of rendering curriculum and failure in providing the facilities they have offered during the time of admission. Accordingly complainant withdrew his children from the opposite party school on 16/3/2007 after receiving transfer certificate. After that on 21/6/2007 the complainant sent Ext. P5 Advocate notice for refund of Rs. 75,200/- which was collected from the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. But the opposite party neither gave any reply nor refund any amount. So the complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievances. The opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of complainant that the standard of education is poor. The complainant has withdrawn his children voluntarily on his own accord and stated that exhibits shows that the complainant took admission after understanding the rules and regulations of the school. The Exts. D2 & D2(a) show that all accounts are settled. No damages were sustained to the complainant due to any act of the opposite parties. It is further stated in the version that the total strength of all classes is fixed as six for providing individual attention to all students by the teachers and Ayahs. If the students are withdrawn indiscriminately without valid reason after admission, the management will not be in a position to maintain the teachers, staff, transport facilities etc. Here the opposite party did not produce any evidence to show that the opposite party school was one of the leading schools in the District of Thiruvananthapuram for excellent training and coaching for the students. They failed to produce any evidence and the opposite parties also did not come before this Forum. The opposite parties state that the complainant’s children have studied for the entire academic year for which they paid the fees and hence opposite parties are not entitled to refund the fees paid. The opposite parties cannot say that the parents should give three months notice if they are withdrawing the children. This is not an agreement and as far as eduction of children is concerned no parents will take any risk. This is a case were the complainant took admission for his children from another school and when he feels that his children are not getting that standard which he expects. So he withdrew his children from the opposite party school and admitted to another school of his choice. The opposite parties cannot say that the parents are bound by the rules and regulations in the prospectus. Here it is admitted fact that the children completed one academic year in the opposite party school. But the complainant remitted a huge amount as admission fee, uniform etc. Here there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not giving standard of education as promised and due to that the complainant is forced to withdraw his children from the opposite party school. So the opposite parties are bound to compensate for the loss sustained by the complainant. In the result complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with costs of Rs. 2,500/-.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with costs of Rs. 2,500/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of receipt till payment.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of August, 2017.
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 148/2008
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness:
PW1 : Radhakrishnan. K.R
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Brochure of opposite party
P2 : Cash receipt dated 16/1/2006 for Rs. 70,000/-
P3 : Cash receipt dated 10/04/2006 for Rs. 45,600/-
P4 : “ 21/08/2006 for Rs. 6800/-
P5 : Copy of Lawyer’s notice to opposite parties
P6 & P6(a) : Postal receipts
P7 & P7(a) : Acknowledgement cards
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents:
D1 : Copy of Application Form of Veena Krishna
D1(a) : Copy of Application Form of Vani Krishna
D2 : True copy of settlement on withdrawal of student Veena Krishna dated 4/5/2007
D2(a) : True copy of settlement on withdrawal of student Vani Krishna dated 4/5/2007
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
