O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that her two daughters namely Simran Prakash and Saumya Prakash had been the students of the Op since June 2005 till March 2010. For the up coming academic year starting in June 2010 she wanted to change the school. That the Op has a policy of collecting full tuition fee for the entire academic year in advance in February itself. Accordingly notice of fee will be sent to the Parents in the month of February to pay the tuition fee within a week. Accordingly, she has paid a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as fee for her both daughters under several heads. Based on her daughter’s admission at NPS, Koramangala on 09/04/2010 they applied for transfer certificates of her daughters. On 15/04/2010 for her first daughter and on 22/04/2010 for her second daughter. On 06/06/2010 they went to Ops school for collection of transfer certificate but the Op refused to issue transfer certificate unless they sign the documents accepting Rs.93,450/- as final settlement therefore they signed the documents under protest. Complainant contending that Op has not refunded the balance amount of Rs.86,550/- has prayed for a direction to the Op to repay that amount to her.<br /> <br /> 2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version admitting, that the daughters of the complainant are studying in their school from June 2005 till March 2010 has stated that the complainant had not at all informed them regarding the change of school until 12/04/2010, 15/04/2010 and 22/04/2010 on different dates until the complainant addressed letters to them. As per their circular, they should be informed about plan of shifting children in writing before the end of February as a dead line announced. As the dead line was not announced, change of school should have been brought to their notice by the end of February which had been informed to the parents, that application for Transfer Certificate will not be entertained after 26/02/2010 till the school re-opens in June and in that case fees for the next year will be due. That seats vacated by the daughters of the complainant remained vacant as no children were admitted to those vacancies. That the complainant did not apply for issue of transfer certificate within the time fixed for application. The complainant only during April 2010 applied for TC for shifting of her daughters to a different school. Even then on humanitarian consideration a sum of Rs.93,450/- was refunded to the complainant and that complainant has given a declaration at the time of taking TC that no dues are there from them. That husband of the complainant in that declaration form has only stated that TC was not given and signed under protest. The Op thus by saying that vacancies occurred due to shifting of complainant daughters were not filled up and as per rules no request was made for shifting of her daughters, thus the complainant is not entitle for refund of entire money and thereby has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Op have filed their affidavit evidence, the complainant in the affidavit evidence contrary to the averments of the complaint has made certain allegations against the Op school stating that it has declined in the quality of teaching in higher grades, not given attention to her daughter Simran, teachers failed to recognize creative talent of her daughter and such similar allegations against teachers of the Op. Op in his affidavit reiterated the contention canvassed in the version. Complainant along with complaint has produced a copy of the prospects of the Ops school, copy of a letter her husband addressed to the Op on 12/04/2009, 15/04/2009 and 22/04/2009 for issue of TC and copy of another letter given to Op for refund of money. Op has produced the copy of the fee structure, hand book for parents and copies of declaration given by the husband of the complainant. We have heard the complainant who is in person, counsel for the Op and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding entire fee paid by her towards fee of her two daughters.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : Answered in Part holding that complainant is entitle for <br /> partial refund of the fee.<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on point No.1: As perused from the contentions of the parties, we find no dispute between them with regard to two daughters of the complainant studying in Op school from June 2005 till 2010 during various academic years and the complainant had paid total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the Op towards fee for academic year 2010-11. Thereafter, husband of the complainant on 12/04/2010, 15/04/2010 and 22/04/2010 gave letters to the Principal of Op informing them of withdrawal of their children from the Op school and requesting the Op to issue TC. Therefore, it is not in dispute that until March 2010, the complainant had not informed the Op about shifting.<br /> <br /> 7. The Op inviting the attention of the complainant and also the attention of the forum referred to the circular or a letter of intimation given to the parents. The complainant herself has produced these two letters given for on behalf of daughters of the complainant to her husband to their knowledge. In these letters Op by giving details of the fee payable towards academic year of her daughters have also included a Para regarding issue of TC. In these letters Op has made clear that all requests for TC need to be submitted latest by 26/02/2010 and TC’s will be issued on a specific day, with a further restrictions that application for issue of TC will not be entertained after 26/02/2010 till the school re-open in June in that case fee for the next year will due. The complainant has also produced the hand book for parents given to them in which payment of school fee is also regulated by informing the parents, that fee for the particular academic year to be paid by the end of February every year. The complainant has not denied these letters and the hand book for parents which were supplied to them and they were in the custody of those documents. Besides this, we should also bear in mind that this complainant is educating her daughters in the Op school right from the year 2005 and her daughters have spent 5 academic year in that school as such the complainant is aware of all the regulations of the Op and policy of the Op. The complainant herself in the complaint has admitted that it is a policy of Op collecting full tuition fee for the entire academic year in advance in February itself and stated to have produced that policy copy of the Op school along with complaint. It is not in dispute that Op school is an international school has its own policy of regulating administration for the academic year regarding admissions, payments of fees, issue of TC etc., and it is admitted that all that policies are in the knowledge of the complainant and she is required to follow. In order to follow discipline in the educational institution particularly in the International schools, the school must be left with the choice of framing regulations for its disciplined carrier. As indicated by the complainant, her husband for the first time applied for TC for withdrawal of the students on 12/04/2010 and for return of TC on 22/04/2010 and thereby complainant has violated the regulations maintained by the Op. That all applications for issue of TC to be submitted latest by 26/02/2010 and applications will not be entertained later on as by that time fee for the next year will be due. With this we shall now next go to the reason for withdrawal of the complainant’s daughters from the Op school.<br /> 8. The complainant in the complaint has stated that based on her daughters getting admission at NPS Koramangala on 09/04/2010 she has stated to had applied for issue of TC to the Op. Nowhere in this complaint, the complainant attributed any short comings against the Op. Thus it is manifest that the complainant had applied for issue of TC as she got admission to her daughters in another school, well we do not find fault in this complainant or any other parents if they choose to withdraw their children from one school to another school with an intention to put them in a better school for better prospectus but that act of such parents should not lead to hindrance for smooth functioning of the earlier school or institution. Added to this, the husband of the complainant in his letter dated 22/04/2010 addressed to the Principal when applied for withdrawal of her daughters and for issue of TC has stated as under.<br /> <br /> “She had a very good stay at Gear the Op school but we feel that it is time for here to move on”.<br /> <br /> 9. By reading the contents of the complainant and this letter of the husband of the complainant we find no allegations against the Op or any short comings which led this complainant to withdraw her daughters. Added to this, the father of the children expressed his happiness stating that his daughter had good stay with the Op. But contrary to this, for the first time the complainant in her affidavit evidence has made certain reckless allegations of declined quality of teaching in higher grades in the Op school, continued decline in her daughter Simran performance year over year supplying loose sheets of papers instead of note books to her children here did not get teacher’s attention, that her daughter Simran was also not getting any attention from her teachers and the teachers failing to recognize creative talance and branding her daughter as poor performer and stated that school environment was undermining her daughter’s confidence. OP has denied this allegation as baseless. The allegations are made for the first time in the affidavit evidence of the complainant in our view is uncharitable, and it comes out that the complainant since got seats to her daughters in a different school, she wanted to shift them and in order to do so she withdrew her daughters from Op school and not for any other reasons.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has alleged that in the hand book for parents given to them she find no bar for refund of fee. Even in the absence of such bar in the prospectus we should also see the interest of the management who runs a disciplined educational institution. As we know the practice prevailing in the international school and schools they fix time for admission, payment of institution fee and issue of TC etc., Admission should be completed and once the tuition fees for their students are received they will have confirmed the filling of the vacancies and they will never entertain fresh admission after that date. Therefore, the complainant who had paid tuition fee of her daughters confirmed the continuation of her daughters in Op school but later on withdrew them. The allegation of the complainant that the Op has filled up those vacancies, later on is denied by the Op in his affidavit evidence. Therefore, considering the administrative discipline maintained by such school, the vacancies subsequently have been filled up as stated by the complainant cannot be believed. Even otherwise the complainant if she had honestly told the forum that she withdrew her daughters for better prospectus to admit them to another school of her choice that could have been appreciated but by filing affidavit with unfound allegations has intended of malign the reputation of the Op. Therefore, considering all these aspects in totality and to check the parents of their fancy of changing schools to suit their convenience and to prevent making such allegations against the school whose service was utilized for 5 academic years for two children, the complainant cannot be allowed to claim refund of the entire fee paid by her. The complainant has admitted that the Op has already refunded Rs.93,450/-. Admittedly classes had not been commenced, Op has also not incurred any expenditure for the complainant’s children towards casual maintenance, library welfare measures, club welfare, stationery, uniform and transportation expenses, therefore Op cannot with hold those payments and of course in the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to direct the Op to refund the amount paid by the complainant deducting Rs.23,750/- each in respect of complainant’s two daughters towards tuition fee and to refund the balance amount. With this, we answer point No.1 accordingly and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. Op is directed to deduct tuition fee of Rs.47,500/- out of the fee paid for admission of two daughters of the complainant out of the balance amount of Rs.86,550/- and refund Rs.39,050/- within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall pay interest @ 9% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Under the circumstances of the case, both parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 31st August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />