OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.70/2012
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3) Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Sri Atek Miyu .........................Complainant
S/O- Sri Samak Miyu
Office of the Chief Engineer ,
Jal Vidyut Bhawan, Department of Hydro Power Development
Itanagar, Near I.G. Park, Itanagar
P.O- Itanagar,Dist-Papum-pare
Arunachal Pradesh, Pin-791111
-VS-
1) Gems NPS International School …………….Opp.Party
NH-37, Near Lakhtra Chariali
P.O- Saukuchi,Guwahati-781034
Dist-Kamrup,Assam
Represented by its Principal
2. The Principal
Gems NPS International School
NH-37, Near Lakhtra Chariali
P.O- Saukuchi,Guwahati-781034
Dist-Kamrup,Assam
Appearance:
None appears on the day of argument.
Date of exparte argument - 02.05.2018
Date of exparte judgment - 17.05.2018
Exparte Judgment
This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1. The complaint filed by Sri Atek Miyu , S/O- Sri Samak Miyu ,O/O-The Chief Engineer, Jal Vidyut Bhawan, Department of Hydro Power Development, Itanagar, Near I.G. Park, Itanagar, P.O- Itanagar,Dist-Papum-pare , Arunachal Pradesh, Pin-791111against (1) Gems NPS International School, NH-37, Near Lakhra Chariali P.O- Saukuchi, Guwahati-781034 ,Represented by its Principal and (2) The Principal, Gems NPS International School, NH-37, Near Lakhra Chariali P.O- Saukuchi, Guwahati-781034 was admitted on 30/11/2012 as a proceeding U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and notices were served on all the opp. parties and on 22/01/2013 all the opp. parties were present and thereafter on 05/09/2013 the opp. parties filed written statement . The complainant P.W-1 and P.W-2 filed evidence on affidavit on 12/02/2014 . The opp.parties defaulted to take steps in this proceeding and being compelled this forum vide order dtd.12/08/2016 directed for hearing of the case on exparte and the complainant filed his exparte written argument on 16/11/2016. On 02/05/2018 this case was fixed for oral argument but none appeared on the day of oral argument and today we deliver the judgment which is as below:
2. The gist of the complainant’s case is that the Opp. Party No-2 in the instant complaint is not refunding the fees taken by him towards admission of the complainant’s son in Class-XI, who was withdrawn by the school authority just after 7 days of his admission in the school (opp.party no-1 in the instant complaint) which action of the opp. parties amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the last week of May,2012 the complainant approached the opp. party no-2 for admission of his son namely Sri Katem Miyu, aged about 16 years, in Class-XI (commerce) in the opp. party no-1 school . The complainant on 04/06/2012 took admission of his son in the school by making payment of an amount of Rs.1,46,000/- only towards admission which was taken on different heads. Thereafter, his son was admitted in the school hostel on 17/06/2012. On , 17/06/2012, the copmplainant has again paid Rs.2,000/- + Rs.5,000/- =Rs.7,000/- as insisted by the school authority . Till 17/06/2012 the complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.1,53,000/- only towards admission of his son. The complainant on 24/06/2012 received a telephone call from the school authority asking him to report/ come to the school immediately on the next day in connection with his son. As he was at Itanagar attending his official duties so he could not come to Guwahati but he sent his wife to the school on 25/06/2012 who was at Guwahati for attending his another son at GNRC Hospital . On reaching the school his wife saw that his son Katem was standing outside office room of the Opp.Party No-2 with his hand tightened from backside . On being enquired with the Opp.Party No-2 she was informed that he tried to misbehaved the teached and also asked her to write a withdrawal letter of Katem withdrawing him from the school as the school authority has already decided not to keep Katem in the school. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant requested several time to the school authority not to withdraw her son from the school and also beg apology on his behalf. But the school authority was constraint with their decisions not to allow Katem to study any furthermore in the school . Hence, finding no other alternatives the wife had to withdraw his son from the school by submitting a withdrawal letter dtd.25/06/2012 before the Opp.Party No-2 . Morever , in the said letter dtd.25/06/2012 she requested the Opp.Party No-2 to refund the fee as her son hardly stayed for one week in the school. As no communication has been received from the school authority regarding refund of the aforesaid due fees, the complainant sent a letter to the opp. party no-2 on 27/06/2012 requesting him to refund the fee. But the school authority did not pay any heed to his letter . The complainant again sent two letters dtd.03/07/2012 and 13/07/2012 to the opp. party no-2 with the same request of refunding the fees. The complainant therafter again sent a legal notice dtd. 18/08/2012 to the opp. party no-2 . On being withdrawal of his son the complainant ran from piller to post to get him admitted in any school at Guwahati. The complainant could luckily manage a seat and got his son admitted there by incurring a heavy extra expenditure . In this connection the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1,70,000/- to the DPS towards the admission excluding other miscellaneous expenses at DPS as at the time of withdrawal of his son from the school his physical condition was very bad as he was badly assaulted by some teachers in the school for which he had to be admitted in GNRC Hospital, Guwahati , where the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.8570/- towards his treatment beside the cost of medicines. The complainant paid Rs.1,53,000/- to the school authority against the services to be provided by them for the session 2012-2013. The school authority neither provided the said services nor his son could avail the same as his son was withdrawn from the school within a period of 7 days from the date of admission, that too before the commencement of the course. The educational institutions are bound to refund the fee and non refund of the same would amounts to unfair trade practice by the school authority which principal has also been confirmed by the University Grants Commission , New Delhi vide Public Notice No-1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dtd.23/04/2007 . The seat which was fallen vacant due to withdrawal of his son has already been filled up by the school authority with other student.
3. The pleading of the opp. parties in brief is that the case of the complainant is false by suppressing the real fact . The complainant came to the school in the middle part of May and met the opp. party no-2 for admission of his son in the school including hostel facilities and after satisfaction the complainant again came to the school on 04/06/2012 and took admission of his son with accomodation as a residential student. The opp. parties strictly denies that some teachers of the school tightened his hand for which he had to be admitted in the GNRC Hospital , Guwahati for which he made expenses of Rs.8570/- for treatment of the ward . After withdrawal of the ward by the complainant from the school, neither the complainant nor the ward give any complaint before the school authority in any occasion. The complaint made against the school is not true and correct but on the other hand the same is false and fabricated . That the complainant case is not true and correct as the son of the complainant was withdrawn by them, since the day of admission in the school as well as in the hostel , the ward due to addiction misbehaved with the students , teachers as well as warden of the school hostel , for which the students , teachers and warden made many complaint for which the son of the complainant also apologised. That the ward was also counselled by the school authority. The son of the complainant also quarelled with other students and teachers for which the teacher informed the same to the principal of the school. When the principal called him and tried to counsel him the son of the complainant instead of making apology he suddenly rashed to the principal and caught the color of the shirt of the principal . After that the office of the school informed the parents/ guardians of the ward and accordingly the wife of the complainant came on next day and withdrew her son from the school as well as from hostel. The complainant will never get refund the fee except the security money as per rules , regulations and declarations . Due to withdrawal of the ward by the guardians from the school as well as from the hostel one seat was lying vacant for the said session. The school authority render better service and always gives chance to rectify the students as such deficiency of service in respect of school authority cannot be arises. The complainant case is not bonafide rather it is malafide and for unlawful gain.
4. We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of parties side. After perusing the pleading of the parties, it appears to us that both sides admit that Sri Katem Miyu was admitted in the school on 04/06/2012 in Class-XI commerce stream with accomodation as a residential student. We have perused the Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3 all dtd.04/06/2012 and Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-5 dtd. 17/06/2012 which are receipts issued by GEMS NPS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL for Registration Fee Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand ) only, for admission fee and annual fee Rs.1,30,000/- only, for security deposit Rs.15,000/- only, for pocket money Rs.2,000/- and for books and stationary Rs.5,000/- respectively . We have found that a total amount of Rs.1,53,000/- only was paid by the complainant in respect of admission of his son in the school as well as in the hostel . We have perused Exhibit-6 which is a letter about withdrawal of Sri Katem Miyu , Class-XI (commerce) student written by Smti O.Miyu mother of Sri Katem Miyu stating that Katem Miya joined the school on 17/06/2012 as hosteller but as directed by the Principal, National Public School, Guwahati,Katem Miyu was withdrawn from the school on 25/06/2012. In Exhibit-6 Smti O.Miya states that Katem Miyu has attended the school for hardly 1 week and requested to refund the fee. We have perused Exhibit-7 which is a letter addressed to the Principal, Gems NPS,N.H-37,Near Lakhra Chariali,Guwahati by the Atek Miyu, the complainant states that his wife was directed to withdraw Sri Katem Miyu from the school and accordingly being compelled a withdrawal letter was written by the wife of the complainant and the ward was taken out from the school and she requested the school authority to refund the school fee which was already paid by them , if Katem Miyu was not allowed to continue in the school and that he attended the school for hardly a week. From this exhibit it is clear that the complainant requested the Principal to refund the amount . We have seen Exhibit-8 , a letter and from this exhibit we have found that the complainant again requested the principal to refund the fee which he had paid if his son Katem Miyu is not allowed to continue in the school . We have perused Exhibit -9 a letter dtd.13/07/2012 written by the complainant to the principal of the school and found that the complainant requested the principal to refund the amount of admission fees within a week. We have perused Exhibit-10 which is a legal notice dtd.18/08/2012 and found that the complainant, through his Ld counsel, requested the principal to refund the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice.
We have perused Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-12 which are money receipts dtd. 10/07/2012 and 16/07/2012 respectively issued from D.P.S, New Delhi and found that Katem Miyu, son of the complainant was admitted in the D.P.S School ,New Delhi ,after withdrawing him from the school of the opp. parties.
We have perused Exhibit-13 which is the GNRC Registration Card , Exhibit-14 which is the prescription and Exhibits-15 and 16 are the cash memos dtd.25/06/2012 of GNRC ,Guwahati and found that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.750/- for OPD consultation fee and an amount of Rs.7,822.25/- for MRI to the said hospital for treatment of his son there for sustaining injuries in his hand for tying up him in the school of the opp. parties.
We have perused evidence of PW No-2 Mrs Odi Miyu, wife of the complainant and it is seen from the evidence of PW No-2 that Sri Katem Miyu who was admitted in the Opp.Party No-1 school in Class-XI (commerce) on 04/06/2012 and in the hostel on 17/06/2012, and then on receipt of the telephonic call from the opp. party school on 24/06/2012 her husband (the complainant) asked her to attend the school on 25/06/2012 and accordingly she went to the school on the same day, and she saw that her son Katem Miyu was standing outside the office room of the principal with his hand tightened from back side and the opp. party asked her to write a withdrawal letter withdrawing her son from the school and then she requested several times not to take such a decision and she also beg apology on behalf of her son but the Opp.Party No-2 was determined not to keep her son anymore in the school, and under the compelling circumstance she had to submit an application dtd.25/06/2012 to the Principal of the school withdrawing Sri Katem Miyu from their school and she in the said application dtd.25/06/2012 also requested the Opp.Party No-2 to refund the school fee paid by the complainant.
5. The opp. parties in their written statement states that the son of the complainant was withdrawn by his mother and since the day of admission in the school as well as in the hostel, the ward Katem Miyu due to addiction he misbehaved with the students , teachers as well as with the warden of the hostel, for which the students , teachers and warden made many complaints before the authority of the school. The opp. parties state in their written statement that the said action of the son of the complainant was also informed to the complainant and the ward was also counselled by the school authority and the son of the complainant also quarelled with other students and teachers for which the teacher reported the same to the principal of the school ,and when the principal called him and tried to counsel him the son of the complainant instead of making apology suddenly rushed to the principal and caught the color of the shirt of the principal. But it is found that the opp. parties did not appear after filing written statement by them on 05/09/2013. We have not found any evidence in support of their said statements. The opp. party side in their written statement states that due to better upliftment of their son and non changing behaviour of their ward , the complainant withdrawn his son from the school as well as from the hostel. But we have not found any evidence to believe their statement. The opp. party sides in their written statement states that the complainant will never get refund the fee, except the security money and due to withdrawal of the ward by the complainant from the school as well as from the hostel wilfully and one seat in result was lying vacant for the session. But we have not found any evidence in support of their statement. Hence, the plea of the opp. parties stands not proved but the plea of the complainant that his ward was expelled by the opp. party without any just ground and by forcing the wife of complainant to write a withdrawal petition.
The opp. parties in their written statement strictly denies that some teachers of the school tightened the complainant’s son’s hand for which he had to be admitted in the GNRC Hospital ,Guwahati for which he made expenses for the treatment of the ward. But as the opp. parties did not appear before this forum after filing their written statement on 05/09/2013, they have failed to prove their denial against the allegations of the complainant. We have not found any evidence from the opp. party in respect of their denial. Hence, the plea of the opp. parties stands not proved.
6. The complainant is a government servant and a resident of Itanagar (Arunachal Pradesh) cannot come to Guwahati frequently due to his busy schedule of official work and he has suffered mental agony is believable . The complainant after withdrawal of his son, Katem Miyu from the school ,ran pillar to post to manage a seat in a school , it is also believable . So, we hold that for non refunding of admission fees and not keeping the son of the complainant in the opp. partys’ school caused mental suffering to him. So,for such causing harassment and causing mental suffering to him, as per our view, he is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
7. It is also found that for no fault of him he has to prosecute the opp. partry before this forum by spending his money and time . As such he is entitled to get atleast Rs.10,000/- as a cost of the proceeding.
8. Because of what has been discussed as above, we hold that , the complainant has a prima facie case against the opp. party and also succeeded to prove his case against them. Therefore, the complaint against all the opp. parties is allowed on exparte with a direction to them to refund to the complainant the amount of admission fees Rs.1,52,000/- with interest @12% per annum from the day of filing of this complaint in this forum by the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental suffering to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which all the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable. It is further directed that they are to pay the awarded amount within 45 days, in default, other two amounts shall carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hands and seal today on this 17th May ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
