COMPLAINT FILED: 26.02.2009

DISPOSED ON: 20.01.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED THIS THE 20^TH JANUARY 2011

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

                         SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA    MEMBER    

                         SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA               MEMBER

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

             The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as OP) to refund a sum of Rs.1,40,349/- with interest at 12% p.a. and to refund the deposit of Rs.30,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-

2.      He admitted his son Mr. Amir Masoud Kochak Kermanshahi as student in Grade 11 of the OP 1 for the academic year 2007-2008, while paying the first semester fee, he paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as a refundable deposit. His son successfully completed his semesters for the year 2007-2008 and the complainant sought for his admission to grade 12 of the OP1 institution for the academic year 2008-2009. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,40,349/- towards tuition fee, bus fee, development and I.T. development fee, ESL fee for the first semester. The ESL (English as a Special Language) fee was collected by the OP on the assurance that should the complainant’s son complete the ESL on the first day of school as he had not secured the required marks in the academic year 2007-2008, then the same would be refunded to the complainant. The ESL exam was cleared by the complainant’s son on 19.08.2008. Barely two weeks after academic year 2008-09 had began, due to personal reasons the complainant son had to discontinue his studies in OP1 institution. Complainant requested to issue the necessary certificates to enable to pursue his studies and refund the fee paid along with refundable deposit in a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was agreed by the OP1. When the son of the complainant went to collect the necessary certificates, he was informed that within a period of 4 weeks fee along with refundable deposit would be paid. On 12.11.2008 a cheque for a sum of Rs.48,000/- drawn up by OP1 was offered to the complainant’s daughter who went to OP1 to collect the refund of the fee and deposit, she refused to receive the said cheque. OP1’s representative explained that OP 1 have refunded a sum of Rs.18,000/- fee out of 1,40,349/- and refundable deposit of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant’s daughter sought for explanation from OP with regard to deductions made.  However till date there has been no response from OP-1. The complainant caused legal notice dated 10.10.2008 to be issued to the OPs. OP-1 has caused an interim reply dated 24.10.2008 and a reply dated 03.11.2008. The replies of OPs are vague and evasive which does not contain detailed explanation to the deductions made by the OP-1 in respect of Rs.1,40,349/- OP has unreasonably, illegally and without any justification, withheld the amounts due to the complainant causing severe hard ship and mental agony to the complainant. OP has not furnished any rules and regulation of refund to the complainant at any point of time despite the complainant seeking for the same several times. The non-refund of the entire school fees and failure to provide a detailed explanation for the deductions made and failure to provide any rules and regulation of refund by OP amount to deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint seeking above reliefs. 

3.      OP on appearance filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is contended that the complainant’s son was admitted to grade 12 for the first semester for the academic year 2008-2009 and has paid the fee after agreeing to be bound by the fee rules for the academic year 2008-2009. As per fee rules the admission fee is non-refundable, as per the terms and conditions of the fee and tuition fees and other fees are non-refundable. The complainant’s son attended the classes for 2 weeks and thereafter on personal reasons discontinued his studies in OP-1 institution. On 02.09.2008 OP-2 received letter from the daughter of the complainant informing about the discontinuance and requested to issue necessary transfer certificate and offered a cheque of Rs.46,935/- inclusive of refundable deposit of Rs.30,000/- and remaining balance of advance amount of RS.16,935/- but the complainant’s daughter was not ready to accept the same. OPs explained to daughter of the complainant that as per fees rules, admission fee, tuition fee and other fee are non-refundable and they are entitled only for the refundable deposit and the balance remaining advance amount. Further they explained to her that the outstanding balance of the advance received last semester was Rs.3,747/- and under the fee receipt dated 09.07.2008 Rs.19,349/- collected under the head advance for text book, field trips and other expenses. Therefore the total balance in the advance account is Rs.23,096/-. It is submitted that OP-1 is intake of students is limited. OP-1 Institution is running only on the fee collected from the students. OP-1 does not get any funds or subsidy on the fee collected from the student. OP-1 explained the expenses which are being incurred by the institution. As per plans OP-1 has to continue by providing the same quality of services and facilities to other students. The complainant leaving the institution in the middle of the year will not reduce the expenses of the OP-1 as the expenses remain the same. OPs are ready to issue cheque for Rs.46,935/-. OPs submit that the complainant’s son failed to procure the minimum passing marks in all the subjects of grade 11 exams, as such he was asked to repeat grade 11 by the school. It is submits that as is the usual practice, the school collected the fee for 12^th grade in advance before the results for grade 11 was announced. The fee payable for grade 11 and grade 12 is the same and therefore the fee paid for grade 12 was adjusted towards fee for grade 11 and permitted the complainant’s son to repeat grade 11. In the transfer certificate given to the complainant’s son it was specifically mentioned that he was pursuing grade 11 at the time of leaving. It is denied that complainant’s son has cleared grade 11 exam successfully. OPs have not issued any certificate to indicate that student has successfully cleared his grade 11 exams. It is denied that OPs assured to refund ESL exam fee if the complainant’s son cleared the exam in first day of the school. The class timings assigned to complainant’s son was 7-45 a.m. and the attendance are taken immediately thereafter as a protocol. The complainant’s son came to school between 8-45 a.m. to 9-54 a.m. on 19.08.2008 and by that time the attendance was called out and the complainant’s son was marked absent. IT is admitted that the complainant’s son has cleared ESL exam on 19.08.2008. As per the fee rules except the refundable deposit, the complainant is not entitled for any fee including ESL exam fee. OPs caused interim reply and reply to the notice received from the complainant. It is submitted that each academic year fee rules are printed and furnished to the students. The fee rules for the academic year 2008-2009 was also put on the notice board on OP 1 institution.  In the fee receipt dated 09.07.2008 in the end there is a note saying “All parents paying the fees will be deemed to have read and understood the rules pertaining to payment of fees”. There is no cause of action for the complainant and there is no deficiency of service as such it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.      In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the daughter of the complainant as a P.A. Holder filed affidavit evidence and complainant’s son also filed affidavit evidence. OP-2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. Both the parties filed written arguments. Arguments heard on both sides. Points for consideration are:

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the

                   deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

     Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for

                  the relief’s now claimed?

     Point No.3:- To what Order?

5.      We have gone through the pleadings of the parties; affidavit evidence, documents produced and written arguments submitted by both the parties. We record our findings on the above points:

Point No.1:- Affirmative

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

6.      It is not at dispute that the complainant admitted his son  Mr. Amir Masoud Kochak Kermanshahi as a student in Grade 11 of the OP-1 institution for the academic year 2007-08 and paid the required fee; including an amount of Rs.30,000/- as a refundable deposit. The complainant sought for his son’s admission to Grade 12 of the OP-1 institution for the academic year 2008-09. OP-1 issued demand note dated 22.04.2008 for the first semester of the academic year 2008-09, pursuant to which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,40,349/- under receipt dated 09.07.2008. That barely two weeks of the academic year 2008-09 had began, due to personal reasons; the complainant son had to discontinue his studies in the OP-1 institution. The complainant requested to refund the fee paid for he academic year 2008-09 along with refundable deposit in a sum of Rs.30,000/-. OP-1 offered to refund the refundable deposit of Rs.30,000/- and an amount of Rs.18,000/- out of the fee paid for the academic year 2008-09 totally Rs.48,000/-. The complainant refused to receive that much of amount and insisted to refund the entire amount paid for the academic year 2008-09 and refundable deposit of Rs.30,000/-.

7.      In the version filed; the main contention of the OPs is as per the fee rules of OP-1 institution for the academic year 2008-09 except the refundable deposit; the other fees paid are non-refundable, the complainant after knowing fully well has paid the fee and his son has attended the classes for two weeks, as such OP-1 is liable to refund only refundable deposit of Rs.30,000/- and an amount of Rs.16,935/- out of the advance amount paid for the academic year 2008-09; totally an amount of Rs.46,935/-. OPs are ready to refund the said amount even now, but complainant is not prepared to accept the same.

8.      OPs produced the fee rules for the academic years 2003-04 to 2009-10 and also the internet print out of OP-1’s website. As per the fee rules for academic year 2008-09 it is stated that once the student is admitted, the admission fee becomes non-refundable, not withstanding the fact that the student may not attend any classes or may attended only a portion of the academic year. Further it is mentioned that students joining in the course of the semester will be charged, the full semester tuition fee and all other fee as applicable. Students leaving in the course of the year will be charged upto the end of that semester. Refundable deposit will be subject to the rules mentioned above. No part of the fee paid whether tuition, development, bus or hostel will be refunded in case of a student being expelled for disciplinary issues. It is also mentioned that all parents paying fee as per this fee structure will be deemed to have been read and understood the rules pertaining to payment of fees, parents will abide by the school rules and rules laid out in this document. In the receipt produced by the complainant dated 09.07.2008 issued by OP for having collected the total fee including advance Rs.1,40,349/-; it is shown that all parents paying the fee will be deemed to have been read and understood the rules pertaining to payment of fee. Under this receipt it is shown that an amount of Rs.65,000/- was collected towards tuition fee Rs.11,000/- towards bus fee, Rs.15,000/- towards development fund, Rs.5,000/- towards IT development fee, Rs.25,000/- towards ESL fee; Rs.19,349/- towards advance. Fee demand note of first semester 2008-09 marked as Exhibit C-3 reveals the details of the fees payable for grade 12 of complainant’s son. Thus it becomes clear that the amount of Rs.1,40,349/- was collected in advance towards grade 12 of the complainant’s son for the first semester 2008-09. When the results were declared it is stated by OP that the complainant son was not successful in grade 11; since the fee payable for grade 11 and grade 12 is same amount. Hence the fee paid towards admission for grade 12 was adjusted towards grade 11 as a repeater for complainant son; as such the fee paid is non-refundable, the complainant is not entitled to seek refund of that amount, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.      It may be noted that in the version filed at para – 4 it is stated that the complainant’s son was admitted to grade 12 for the first semester for the academic year 2008-09; the complainant paid the fee after agreeing to be bound by the fee rules for the academic year 2008-09. As per the terms and conditions of the fee rules the tuition fee and other fee are non refundable. Further at para – 5 of the version it is stated that the complainant’s son attended the classes for two weeks and thereafter on personal reasons discontinued his studies in OP-1 institution. In the complaint at para – 4 it is pleaded that since the complainant’s son had successfully completed his semesters for the year 2007-08; the complainant had also sought for his son’s admission to grade 12 of the OP-1 for the academic year 2008-09 and has paid an amount of Rs.1,40,349/- as per the demand note issued by OP. At para – 11 of the version OPs admitted para – 3 and 4 of the complaint averments initially as true. During the course of arguments when we sought clarification as to whether the seat in grade 12 which became vacant on account of complainant’s son discontinuing his study was not filled up, the counsel for OP took time to clarify the same. Later OPs changed their stand by amending the version stating that the complainant son failed to procure the minimum passing marks in all the subjects of grade 11 of the school, the fee collected for grade 12 in advance was adjusted towards fee for the grade 11 of the complainant’s son to repeat the grade 11. In our view the fee rules are silent with regard to adjustment of fee paid in advance for the fee payable as a repeater. Therefore there is no merit in the contention of OPs that the fee collected in advance for grade 12 even before announcing the result of grade 11  is adjusted

towards fee payable for grade 11 as a repeater. The fee rules governs only the fees paid for the academic year 2008-09 of grade 12. If the complainant son has left the school after completing successfully grade 11 and attended the classes of grade 12, the fee rules with regard to non refundable could have been invoked. As the complainant son was not successful in completing grade 11 as such the fee collected in advance for grade 12 cannot be adjusted for grade 11 as a repeater unilaterally by OPs without there being any request by the complainant to adjust the said fee as a repeater for grade 11 for his son to continue education in OP institution. Under these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention and version of OPs that the fee collected for grade 12 in advance was adjusted towards grade 11 as a repeater of complainant son as he was not successful in completing grade 11. The fee rules does not provide that when a fee is collected in advance and the student is not eligible for admission to such grade to continue education, the fee collected is non-refundable.

10.    An amount of Rs.25,000/- was collected towards ESL (English as a Special Language) fee and complainant’s son cleared the ESL examination on the first day of school as he has not secured the required marks in the academic year 2007-08. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the fee of Rs.25,000/- charged towards ESL fee is unreasonable and the same is at a higher side cannot be accepted. The Forums are not competent to re fix or to hold the fee fixed as unreasonable. There is no material to show that the ESL fee collect would be refunded in

case, the complainant son succeeds in  ESL examination. Admittedly OP has conducted ESL examination on the first day of school, as such the complainant is not entitled to seek refund of that amount of Rs.25,000/-.

11.    As per para – 6 of the version the out standing balance of advance received last semester was Rs.3,747/- and under the fee receipt dated 09.07.2008, Rs.19,349/- was collected under the head advance for text books, field trips and other expenses. Therefore the total balance in the advance account was Rs.23,096/-. OP has produced the vouchers at Annexure-B to G towards the expenses incurred. After deducting the same the balance advance amount to be refunded is Rs.16,935/-. The refundable deposit amount is Rs.30,000/-. Thus the total amount to be refunded towards advance amount received and refundable deposit is Rs.46,935/-. OP is liable to refund the other fee i.e. tuition fee Rs.65,000/-, development fee Rs.15,000/-, bus fee Rs.11,000/-, IT development fee Rs.5,000/- thus in all Rs.96,000/- in respect of the fee collected; in addition the amount of Rs.46,935/- stated above. The total amount to be refunded is Rs.1,42,935/-. The act of OP in not refunding the amount after the discontinuation of education by complainant’s son amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly we proceed to pas the following:    

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,42,935/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order. 

          Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20^th day of January – 2011.)

PRESIDENT

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER 

 Snm: