THE KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FA NO.397/2012.

JUDGMENT DTD: 21-12-2012.

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA    :     MEMBER

 SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         Chinmaya Educational

Cultural and  Charitable Trust,

Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananathpuram.

2.         The Chief Sevak,

Chinmaya Educational Cultural

and Charitable Trust, Vazhuthacaud,

Thiruvananthapuram.

3.         The Principal, Chinmaya Vidhalayam,                      -           APPELLANTS

            Attukal, Manacaud,

            Thiruvananthapuram.

            (By Adv. K. Krishna Kumar)

            VS.

            J.S. Sukesan,

“Harisree”, T.C. 48/1092-1,

            Ambalathara, Poonthura P.O.

Thiruvananthapuram.                                                -           RESPONDENT

            JUDGMENT

                                    SMT. A. RADHA    :     MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No.233/2009. 

2.       The complainant’s case is that for getting admission to the first standard for the academic year 2009-2010,  the complainant remitted Rs.10,065/- to the opposite parties.  The opposite party issued 3 receipts for Rs.3,015/-, Rs.7,000/- and Rs.50/-.  It is the case of the complainant that his daughter never attended any class in the first standard as she got admission in Kendriya Vidhyalaya.  It is asserted in the complaint, that he had informed the opposite party the possibility of getting admission in Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Pattom.  This was informed to the opposite party and also requested to refund the amount of Rs.10,065/-.  The opposite party refused to refund the amount.  The specific reason for withdrawal from the opposite party’s School was that his daughter got admission.  He is legally entitled to get the refund of the amount.  Though he approached the opposite party, they were reluctant to return the money and the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the illegal, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant also claimed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 

          3.       In the written version, opposite party contended that the admission for the complainant’s daughter was given as he was residing near the school and also contended that the complainant’s daughter directly came to join the 1^st standard.  The opposite parties were having their own LKG and UKG classes.  The complainant’s daughter’s admission in Kendriya Vidhyalaya was not informed to the opposite party. Complainant’s daughter joined 1^st standard on 22/04/2009 and she was in the roll of the 1^st standard.  It is also admitted that he remitted the fees after obtaining admission.   The complainant’s daughter was absent for 9 days after the opening of the classes.  It is also contended that the opposite parties are not liable to refund the amount as they lost one seat in the 1^st standard and there occurred a loss of chance for another student to study in the opposite party’s School.  It is the complainant who defrauded the opposite party without giving prior information regarding the admission of his child.  The complainant joined another School without obtaining Transfer Certificate of his daughter from the opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and is not liable to get refund of the amount remitted by the complainant.   The complainant is not entitled to claim for compensation also. 

          4.       The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P13.  The opposite party’s evidence consisted of Exts. D1 & D2.

5.       The Counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that the order of the Forum below is improper and the appellant is not liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,065/- to the complainant.  It is also submitted that the appellant was ready to settle the refund of donation and corpus fund. Since the complainant already filed the case before the Consumer Forum it was beyond their control to refund the amount.  The other submission of the counsel is that the opposite party lost a seat due to the joining of complainant’s daughter in 1st standard in their School.  It is only after the opening of the class the complainant approached the opposite party for refund of the amount as the complainant’s child already got admission to the 1^st standard at Kendriya Vidyalaya.  It is also submitted that recently the Hon. High Court, clearly stated that the College Authorities are entitled to retain the tuition fees but to refund the balance amount collected.  Hence the appellant is entitled to retain the tuition fees already paid by the respondent.  The respondent never informed that his daughter got admission in Kendriya Vidhyalaya. The fees were remitted as early as on 22/04/2009 and the respondent approached for the refund of the amount only on 15/06/2009.  By that time the complainant’s daughter had already enrolled in the 1^st standard and she was continuing still as a student.  The appellants were always ready to refund the amount except tuition fees.  As per Exbt. P13 the appellant was ready to refund the donation and corpus fund but due to the pendency of the case   before the Consumer Forum, the appellant was unable to settle the matter.  By the act of the complainant the seat for another student in the 1^st standard was denied and no deficiency can be attributed upon the opposite parties.  In the instant case the appellant is the loser as the appellant could not collect further fees from any other student.  To prove the case of the appellant Exbts. D1 & D2 produced wherein the name of the complainant’s child was shown as continuously absent from 1^st   to ^9th of June and thereafter shown as discontinued. 

          6.       The Counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the appellant.  The complainant remitted Rs.10,065/- as demanded by the appellant in order to join in the 1^st standard for his daughter as early as on 22/04/2009.  On getting admission in the Kendriya Vidhyalaya the respondent approached the appellant for refund of the amount which was refused by the appellant.  After issuance of the lawyer’s notice the appellant was even adamant to refund the amount.  It is also submitted that the appellant collected the fees without rendering any service to the child which amounts to deficiency in service as an educational institution.  It is true that the child got admitted in the 1^st standard of the appellant.  At the time of admission it was also informed that they had applied in the Kendriya Vidhyalaya in the 1^st standard.  The specific reason for not joining the opposite party’s school is that the respondent’s child got admission in Kendriya Vidhyalaya.  The respondent requested to refund the entire fees remitted. CBSE Board directed the appellant to refund the donation and ‘Corpus Fund’ collected.  The CBSE found that the school   violated the bye laws by accepting donation from the respondent.  It goes without saying that the appellant illegally grabbed money from the respondent for getting School admission.  Even after receiving the letter dated, 29/04/2010 the appellant was reluctant to return the money.  Again the matter was prolonged on the ground that the case was pending before the Consumer Forum.  Due to the delay in settling the refund of money remitted, the appellant is liable to return the accepted money as well as compensation for the deficiency in service.  It is also submitted by the complainant’s counsel that for genuine reasons he is entitled to get refund of his tuition fees.  Where there is no service extended, there is no right to collect tuition fees.  It amounts to illegal enrichment by the educational institution.  The only document in evidence adduced by the appellant is the copy of the Attendance Register and the name was not admitted as it was not proved properly. It is also evident that the complainant’s daughter not even attended any of the classes.  Further it is also argued that the class teacher was not examined to prove the attendance register. The matter being so, the appellant already admitted that they had collected Rs.10,065/- from the complainant towards the fees and no service was availed to the child of the complainant,  the respondent is entitled to get  refund of the fees remitted along with compensation.

          7.       Heard both counsels in detail and also on going through the documents we are of the view that the remittance of fees by the respondent/complainant is an admitted fact.  The reasons stated for discontinuation of the complainant’s child was a genuine one as the child got admission in Kendriya Vidhyalaya.  Further the child had not attended any of the class and thus   no service was availed by the respondent.  Where there is no service provided no consideration can be accepted by the educational institution.  It is in evidence that the CBSE Board directed the appellant to refund the amount as early as on 29/04/2010, which was not complied by the appellant.  The illegal acceptance of ‘corpus fund’ and donation are against the rules.  It is also to be pointed out that the appellant had not brought out any evidence to prove financial loss caused to them due to the non-joining of the complainant.  Though they have argued that another student lost the chance which was not proved, we find unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite parties.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and we have no hesitation to uphold the order passed by the Forum below.

          The office is directed to send a copy of the order to the Forum below with LCR.   

A. RADHA    :      MEMBER

 K.CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

NB