District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.444/2021.
Date of Institution: 07.09.2021.
Date of Order: 24.4.2023.
Gopesh Dharawal S/o Om Prakash Dharwal R/o Plot No. 345, Sector-30, Faridabad, Aadhar card No. 279441274096.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Eicher School situated at 344, Sector-46, Faridabad, Haryana through its Principal Mrs. Arpita Chakborthy.
2. Indian Overseas Bank Branch Sector-46, Faridabad (Haryana) through its Branch head Manager.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Amardeep Yadav, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.K.Aggarwal, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant’s son namely “Parth” Dharwal was studying in class fourth, his admission number was 4653 in Eicher School (opposite party No.1) Complainant spent his hard earn money for paying school fee etc. for bright future of his son. The complainant regularly paying school fees of his son and other dues on time as raised by opposite party No.1 time to time. Complainant’s wife issued one cheque bearing No. 160463 dated 21.4.2021 amounting to Rs.25,146/- of Bank of India branch Sector 46, District Faridabad in favour of opposite party No.1 as advance quarterly fees of three months of April to June 2021. Authorize person/fee account clerk accepted the cheque from complainant and presented the said cheque for encashment but as per version of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 said cheque bearing No. 160463 was bounced due to reason “Connectivity Failure “ and opposite party No.1 received bank return memo dated 29.04.2021 from opposite party No.2. Authorize person/account clerk of opposite party no.1 telephonically informed complainant about the bouncing of the cheque issued by complainant in favor of respondent no.1. That complainant surprised to know the fact of bouncing of the mentioned cheque and made inquiry to know the actual reason to the calling clerk madam but she refused to inform anything about the reason of bouncing of the cheque on telephonically and advised complainant to visit at school main gate to collect his bounced cheque and handover fresh cheque immediately otherwise his son name will be struck off from respondent no. 1. The Complainant requested the madam that he was not defaulter of school dues and he issued advanced fee cheque and requested her many times to inform him on about the reason of bouncing of cheque issued by him to opposite party no. 1 and also requested her that it is not safe for him and his family to visit in such critical conditions of spreading of covid-19 in district Faridabad. But she clearly refused to inform anything telephonically. The complainant requested calling account clerk madam to send photo of returned memo / bouncing report issued by opposite party no.2 through what'sapp to complainant to know the actual reason of bouncing cheque bearing no. "160463" as complainant had sufficient funds in his account to honor the cheque in question. The complainant requested authorize person/fees account clerk of respondent no. I that he would visit after few days as Covid-19 spreading very seriously in locality and Haryana Government announced complete lock-down for all and in this situation to visit the school to drop fresh Cheque and collect bounced chequeis very risky or dangerous for complainant himself as well as for his whole family. But authorized account clerk of opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed to genuine request of complainant and strictly threaten and pressurized complainant to handover fresh cheque of bounced amount of school fee along with Rs. 118/- (One Hundred eighteen Rupees) as charges of bounced cheque which was debited from bank account of opposite party No.1. The complainant under fear of opposite party No.1 authorities had no other option to take the risk of his life and went to school main gate on 11-05-2021 but he came to know from security guard that security headKeep his bounced cheque in locker and he would be available at evening that 13-05-2021 to hand over fresh cheque of advance school fee along with Rs. 118/- of penalty amount of bounced cheque and collect his bounced cheque from gate security guard of respondent no. 1. The authorized medical person of respondent no. I had not provide first aid to son of complainant when he was got injured in school premises and when complainant objected the irresponsible conduct of school staff then authorized person of opposite party No.1 threatened complainant to struck off his son name from opposite party no.1. School staff doing malicious behavior with complainant and trying different ways to harass complainant as complainant raised his voice against the Misconducts behaviors of school authorities. Authorities of opposite party no. I also harassed& humiliated minor child of complainant who is student of opposite party No. 1. The complainant sent legal notice dated 24.06.2021 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
b) to ensue emergency medical facilities for injured students.
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 118/- towards cheque bouncing charges and harassed him by compelling to visit the school for submitting the fresh cheque during pandemic and lockdown. In this regard, it was submitted that the School had requested the Complainant that he can pay the fees through internet banking so that he wouldn't have to visit the school during the pandemic to drop the cheque. However, the Complainant informed that he did not use internet banking and he would come to the school to drop the cheque. Accordingly, a fresh cheque of Rs. 25264/- was handed over on 24.05.2021 by the Complainant at the main gate. Thus the Complainant voluntarily visited the school for payment of the fee despite having an option to deposit through internet banking or any other electronic mode. As far as the allegation with respect to imposing a penalty of Rs. 118/- is concerned it was submitted that as per the process of the school, as soon as the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank the details about the bounced cheque were entered in the ERP by the concerned office and an amount of Rs.118/- was automatically added as Cheque Bounce Amount in the ERP stem. However, in appropriate cases of bounced cheques not due to the fault of the Person concerned the same is waived off Accordingly when the Cheque of the Complainant was dishonoured he was asked to pay the said amount of Rs.118/ -towards Cheque Bounce Amount. It was subsequently informed by the Bank in its statement that the cheque of the Complainant was dishonoured due to Connectivity Failure'. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 informed the Complainant /parent of ParthDharwalto not include Rs. 118/-the Cheque Bounce Amount' with the fees amount when preparing a new cheque. However, despite the clear intimation the Complainant deposited a fresh cheque including Rs. 118/- towards cheque bouncing charges. In any case, the opposite party No. 1 returned the said amount of Rs. 118/- through cheque, which was sent to the Complainant through Speed Post and admittedly the said amount was duly received by the Complainant Therefore, the compliant of the Complainant was without any cause of action against the opposite party No. 1 and was also bad in law and on facts of the case. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the opposite party No. 1 was having account with the answering opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 deposited a cheque No. 160463 amounting Rs.25,146/- on 28-04-2021 for encashment. The cheque No. 160463 was returned back with the complainant wife's banker with the remark "Failure of Connectivity" cheque in question was bounced. The answering opposite party No. 2 had no any role for bouncing of cheque No. 160463 and the same was dishonored due to failure of connectivity of complainant wife's banker and for which answering respondent No. 2 is not responsible in any manner. The answering opposite party No. 2 had not charged any amount from the answering opposite partyNo. 1 on account of dishonored of said cheque. In the present complaint, complainant had no any relation with the opposite party No. 2 as consumer and complainant had no any role in cheque No. 160463 which was issued by complainant's wife and same was dishonored by complainant's wife's banker in any manner. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Eicher School & Others with the prayer to: a) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . b) to ensure emergency medical facilities for injured students. c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Gopesh Dharwal,, Ex.C-1 – photocopy of cheque of Rs.25146/-, Ex.C-2 – Original Bank return Memo dated 29.04.2021, Ex.C-3 – legal notice,, Ex.C-4 – postal receipt,, Ex.C-5 – letter dated July 8,2021, Ex.C-6 – photocopy of cheque of Rs.118/-. Mark A to C- details of charges, Mark d – Fee summary, Mark e – Paid details.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/a – affidavit of Arpita Chakraborty , Principal Eicher School 344, Sector-46, Faridabad, Ex.RW1/1 – photocopy of cheque of Rs.25,146/-, Ex.RW1/2 - Receipt, Ex.RW1/3 – Return Memorandum.
As per evidence of opposite party No.RW-2/A, affidavit of Ved Prakash Jindal, in the capacity of Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Sector-46, Faridabad, Ex.RW2/B – Transaction inquiry.
7. During the course of arguments father of the complainant appeared in person and orally stated at Bar that the amount has been transferred in the account of his wife who is the complainant and he is satisfied with the behavior of the opposite party. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party argued at length and stated at Bar this complaint is technically not fit. Cheque was of the wife and the complaint is filed by the husband. We are ready for compromise and we have deposited the amount We are ready of apology for the inconvenience to the parents of the students.
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off accordingly. There are no orders as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 24.04.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
