Date of Filing:30/08/2014

  Date of Order:28/09/2016

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This the complaint filed in person filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P praying for direction to refund the amount of Rs.17,000/- paid towards the admission of his son to the O.P institution and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant with an intention to admit his son to the O.P school for LKG paid Rs. 17,000/- on 17.1.2014.  The complainant states that, due to personal problems the complainant did not admit his child to the school and requested the Principal through letter dated 30.1.2014 to cancel the admission and asked for refund of Rs.17,000/- paid to the O.P. Whereas the O.P through reply intimated that the complainant is only eligible for Rs.2,000/- for refund and Rs.15,000/- is forfeited without any cause. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon service of notice O.P appeared through its counsel and filed its version. In the version it is admitted that complainant paid Rs.17,000/- for admission of his child.  O.P has explained the admission rules to the complainant and accordingly the complainant and his wife have executed a declaration in favour of the O.P and the complainant have instituted the mode of payment for admission, tuition and other miscellaneous fees to be paid towards admission of child for LKG class for the academic session 2014-15.  The complainant by satisfying the rules and regulations of the schools executed the aforesaid documents and application form for the admission.  Hence O.P contended as per the school’s rules and regulations the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the fees and prays to dismiss the complaint.

5.     To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed the affidavit evidence along with documents.  We have heard the arguments.

6.     On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-

                                (A)    Whether the complainant has proved

                       deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

(B)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the

         relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)    What order?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) and (B) :  In the Affirmative

POINT (C):  As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT  No (A) and (B):-

8.     On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the complainant on 17.1.2014 paid Rs.17,000/- in order to get admission of his son to the LKG class with the O.P school. On perusal of copy of the receipts produced before us it discloses that Rs.2,000/- collected towards tuition fees and Rs.15,000/- as a non-refundable fee. It is the grievances of the complainant is that on account of personal problem he was unable to send his child to the school and hence asked O.P to refund the amount by cancelling the admission.

9.     It is worth to note that, the O.P. contending that by knowing the rules and regulations of the school complainant has executed the declaration form and the admission form and hence he is not entitled for refund of the amount. It is pertinent to note that the O.P is misconstrued the meaning of the word ‘Service’. But it carried wider meaning. It is unfortunate to state that now a days education institutions are taking the character of corporate offices commercial corporate sectors. Whatever it may be the declaration given by the complainant, that cannot be deemed  as construct of agreement as prevailing in the business field or as denied in the same should not be defined the affairs involves in the present case cannot be treated as like sale of goods.  Furthermore as an admitted fact the complainant paid Rs.17,000/- on 17.1.2014 prior to commencement of the academic year 2014-15 and school has suppressed to invite applications in the month of closure of the academic year or in the month of May. Whereas O.P. invited applications and collected the fee in the month of January itself it clearly shows that how the education institutions are acting contradictory to Government Rules. When the complainant paid Rs.17,000/- on 17.1.2014 and asked for refund of the amount in the same month but it is an astonishing fact, why the O.P not refunded amount from the office expenditure.  Hence the act of the O.P is deplorable one. The declaration form though it is given by the complainant is no bar to seek refund after withdrawing the admission.  Prior to commencement of the academic year the non-refunding of the amount obviously deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. On perusing the e-mail correspondences made between the complainant and the O.P it clearly discloses that though many a times complainant required the O.P to refund the amount but the O.P by not refunding the amount contended that complainant is not entitled to seek refund, it should not be forgotten that now a days providing the education to the children is heavy burden to the parents and the complainant paid his hard earned money to the O.P school.  For any reasons complainant withdrawn the admission, the O.P school ought to have refunded the amount. The law mandates that no one should be enriched at the cost of others.  In the attendance circumstances of the case, we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P to pay Rs.17,000/- to the complainant with cost of proceedings and its will be meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answered these points in the affirmative.

POINT (C):

10.   On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.

2. The O.P i.e. Indian Public School represented by its authorized signatory/Principal is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- to the complainant.

3. The O.P shall pay Rs.2,000/- to the cost of the proceedings.
4. The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28^th Day of September 2016)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak