DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.88/2009
Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o 29, Yusuf Sarai Village
New Delhi-110016 ….Complainant
Versus
1. The Principal
General Raj School
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
2. The Director of Education
Ministry of Education
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi …...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 30.11.2009 Date of Order : 28.04.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant’s son was studying in the OP No.1 school since nursery class and now studying in class IV-B and he was paying regular fees and other expenses whenever asked by the OP No.1. The OP No.1 never considered any problem of the students and always kept the parents under threats for deletion of their wards’ name if they failed to make the payments as and when raised under different heads. It was found that there was no facility in respect of sports/games though OP No.1 was charging from the parents under the said heads. Many parents had complained of not providing the proper facility for the sports. They advised the OP No.1 to introduce more sports alongwith proper trainer and equipments but the OP No.1 never paid any heed on the suggestion/request of the complainant. Rather they threatened him that if he pointed out their institution about the sport they will expel his ward from the school and spoil the career of the child if the complainant visited the office of the OP No.1 school. It is submitted that he came to know from his friend circle that one institution named Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, RAI, District Sonipat, Haryana had introduced the vacancies in their school and giving good training to the interested students in various sports like boxing, wrestling, swimming and relay race etc. He visited the institution and convinced himself about the facility provided by the institution. Thereafter, he made up his mind to put his child in the above school for the year 2009-10. As per the terms of the prospectus the parents were asked to bring the attestation on the form from the school where the student was studying last. He filled up the form and requested the OP No.1 school office to make the attestation on the said form but OP No.1 refused to attest the form, rather threatened him to throw his child from the school. The official of the OP No.1 even demanded the fees of the next quarters i.e. from January 2009 to March 2009 with the direction to pay the blank cheque of the said quarter. He paid Rs.3540/- in the name of OP No.1 and again requested to attest the form as he wanted to enroll his son with the above institution. The official of OP No.1 refused to accept the cheque and threatened him to bring the blank cheque otherwise his son will not be allowed to sit in the class after December, 2008. It is submitted that he ran pillar to post to get his form attested but all in vain and the last date also expired to enroll his child with the above institution. He sent an application under the RTI Act regarding under which rules and regulations the form was not attested by the institution. The OP No.2 has also not taken any action till date despite receiving the letter. The OP No.2 must suspend and cancel the license of the OP No.1 who deliberately stopped the complainant ward to get the admission in Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Haryana. Hence, the present complaint has been filed for issuing direction to the OP No.1 and 2 to:
- direct the OP No.1 to pay the expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant,
- direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation towards harassment and torture suffered by the complainant from the hands of the OP No.1 officials.
- direct the OP No.1 to provide all the details as demanded under the Right to Information Act for not attesting the form of his child and,
- direct the OP No.2 to suspend the license of the OP No.1 immediately so that the officials of the OP No.1 should not harass any other parents and also not play with the future of the child.
OP No.1 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the attestation of the form of another school cannot be done by another school. OP No.1 is not charging anything nor any consideration was paid for the alleged service. Therefore, the question of deficiency of service does not arise at all in order to give rise to the cause of action for filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Nowhere in the complaint a case of deficiency of service is made out. It is denied that the OP No.1 is treating the school as trade and always kept the parents under threats for deletion of their wards’ name if they failed to make the payments as and when raised under different heads. Thousands of the students are studying in the school and nobody has any complaint. The son of the complainant has also studied for about 5 years and there was no complaint earlier. It is denied that there is no facility in respect of sports/games and they are charging from the parents under the said head. It is also denied that the Principal declared that they can spoil the carrier of the child if the complainant again visited the office of the school. It is denied that the complainant ever met with the Principal or requested to attest the form. It is also denied that they had demanded fees of January to March, 2009 and to pay the blank cheque. The complainant is making false allegations without any proof. It is submitted that had the complainant met with the Principal, the things would have been different. However, the admission form of another school cannot be attested by the OP School. It is clear from the form that there is no column for attestation of the Form. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
OP No.2 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.09.09 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Keerthi Sharma, Principal has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1 and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant’s child was studying with the OP No.1 school. The complainant filed a form of Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, RAI (copy annexure-A) wherein the complainant applied for his son’s admission. Certificate No.1 on page 5 was required to be got certified from the Govt./recognized school in which the child was studying. It is in the form of verification of particulars of the child as per the school records. It appears that the certificate had been got stamped but later on it was erased. Certificate bears the date 14.11.2008. Cheque Annexure B for an amount of Rs.3450/- is dated 09.01.2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that a cheque for payment of fee for the months of January, 2009 to March, 2009 in the last week of November, 2008 was given by the Complainant to the OP No.1. Things are not clear. Complainant’s case is not clear. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.04.17.
