Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/599/2017

RAJEEV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

JESUS CARE CONVENT SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

NARINDER KUMAR

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

         (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

 

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                411/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :  18-03-2015

 Date of Decision      :    16-10-2018

 

Rajeev Kumar,

S/O Sh.Kulbushan Dutt,

R/O Naseeb Nagar,

Paloura,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

               V/S

Jesus Care Convent School,

Ward No.59,Mohalla Khajuria,

Top Paloura,Jammu

Through Renu Anthony.

                                                                                                                                Opposite party

CORAM:-

                 Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                    -  Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                         

       

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Narinder Kumar Attri,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.P.S.Parmar,Advocate for OP,present.  

 

                                                               ORDER

 

                    Grievance of complainant lies in short compass is that the OP is a private institution rendering the services of imparting education on payment of fee for consideration and the complainant got his daughter,namely,Samirdhi Sharma admitted in pre-nursery classes since in the year 2011.That the Op used to charge hefty monthly fee from the complainant and at present the daughter of complainant have been studying in U.K.G.Class.That in 1^st week of December,2014 wife of complainant hospitalized on account of being pregnant, complainant could not attend the school in person. That on the declaration of the result of his daughter,OP informed that his ward has done fairly in the examination and stands promoted to the Ist class, but denied the admission in the school on account of the fact that the complainant failed to deposit the admission fee in advance in December,2014 to the tune of Rs.10,000/-as has been deposited by other parents. Allegation of complainant is that he had requested that his ward is in school since 2011 as such no question of depositing of admission fee that too in advance does arise, but throwing norms to the winds the OP had struck off the name of the ward from the school. That strucking the name of the ward from school on the pretext of failure to pay the admission fee in advance would amount to rendering deficient service and un fair trade practice. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs for causing unnecessary harassment and mental torture.

                 On the other hand,OP filed written version and went onto total denial to the averments contained in the complaint. It is submitted that the daughter of complainant was studying in UKG in Session 2014-2015.It is further submitted that as the school is only upto primary standard and after UKG many parents withdraw their children from the school in order to get them admitted in other school in Class Ist .That the OP is only admitting fifty students in Class Ist in order to provide better quality education to them.The defence set up by OP is that in the month of December a notice was sent to every parent intimating them about the admission in Ist Class which was to commence in the Ist week of January and the parents who were interested in keeping their child in the school of OP had to fill a registration form so that the students coming from other schools can be admitted  taking the students upto 50,copy of notice is attached herewith. That the complainant had not submitted the registration form for Ist class and even did not inform orally about his intention to continue his daughter in the school of OP.It is submitted that the daughter of complainant had done fairly well in the exams, as she was provided with best and quality education which is the motto of the OP.It is further submitted that when the complainant had not opted for admission in the school of OP,the OP had admitted other children who had approached OP and their capacity of class Ist was complete. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied by OP.

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Hardeep Sharma.Complainant has placed on record copy of bill book, copies of fee cards and copy of progress card.

            On the other hand,OP adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Renu Anthony Principal of the School. The OP has placed on record copy of notice      

                  We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                  Briefly stated case of complainant is that complainant got his daughter,namely,Samirdhi Sharma admitted in pre-nursery class since in the year 2011 and the Op used to charge hefty monthly fee from the complainant and at present the daughter of complainant have been studying in U.K.G.Class.That in 1^st week of December,2014 wife of complainant hospitalized on account of being pregnant, complainant could not attend the school in person. That on the declaration of the result of his daughter,OP informed that his ward has done fairly in the examination and stands promoted to the Ist class, but denied the admission in the school on account of the fact that the complainant failed to deposit the admission fee in advance in December,2014 to the tune of Rs.10,000/as has been deposited by other parents. Allegation of complainant is that he had requested that his ward is in school since 2011, as such, no question of depositing of admission fee that too in advance does arise, but throwing norms to the winds the OP had struck off the name of the ward from the school. That strucking the name of the ward from school on the pretext of failure to pay the admission fee in advance would amount to rendering deficient service and un fair trade practice.

                     On the other hand, stand of OP is that the daughter of complainant was studying in UKG in Session 2014-2015,but as the school is only upto primary standard and after UKG many parents withdraw their children from the school in order to get them admitted in other school in Class Ist .That the OP is only admitting fifty students in Class Ist in order to provide better quality education to them.Further defence of OP is that in the month of December a notice was sent to every parent intimating them about the admission in Ist Class which was to commence in the Ist week of January and the parents who were interested in keeping their child in the school of OP had to fill a registration form so that the students coming from other schools can be admitted  taking the students upto 50. That the complainant had not submitted the registration form for Ist class and even did not inform orally about his intention to continue his daughter in the school of OP.

                  After hearing L/Cs for the parties and perusing case file, in our opinion, the point for consideration is, as to whether or not, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

                    In order to prove his contention, complainant adduced evidence in the shape of his own duly sworn affidavit and also filed evidence affidavit of Hardeep Sharma. The deposition of complainant and his witness are verbatim reproduction of averments of complainant,therefore,need not to be reiterated again.OP has also lead evidence in the shape of affidavit of Renu Anthony Principal of the School.

                     The witness of OP has duly supported the version of Op contained in the written version, the witness deposed that in the month of December,2014 a notice was sent to every parents intimating them about the admission in Ist Class which was to be commenced in the first week of January,2015 and the parents who were interested in keeping their child in the school of deponent had to fill a registration form so that the students coming from other school can be admitted as there were only fifty seats for admission in UKG.The deponent has never charged the registration fee of Rs.10,000/rom any of the parents for registering their wards for Class Ist.The witness further deposed that the complainant had not submitted the registration form for class Ist and even did not inform orally about his intention to continue his daughter in the school of OP.That the daughter of complainant was attending the school regularly and the deponent was not having any knowledge about the hospitalization of his wife.The witness further deposed that the daughter of complainant had done fairly well in the exams, as she was provided with best and quality education which is the motto of the deponent. It is further submitted that when the complainant had not opted for admission in the school of deponent, the deponent had admitted other children who had approached the deponent and the capacity of students in Ist Class was complete and the deponent had never received admission fee as advance from any of the parents. That when the complainant had not submitted the registration form and even not informed the deponent about the continuing of his daughter in the school, there was no occasion for admitting the daughter of complainant when there was no vacancy/seats available with the deponent in the class. That after receiving he notice, complainant had not opted for continuing admission in the school, the vacancy was filled by other candidates. Had there been any vacancy,the deponent would have definitely  admitted the daughter of complainant in class Ist.So there is no deficiency of service as complainant and other parents was informed in the month of December,2014 itself. That the deponent has charged the fee only for UKG class and the daughter of the complainant had completed her UKG from the school of deponent with flying colours.So whatsoever was charged from the complainant, much more was returned in the shape of good and quality education to his daughter which can be judged from the schooling of the child. That the name of the daughter of complainant had not been struck by the deponent but it was the complainant who even after the request of the deponent had not intimated the deponent about the admission in Ist class in the school and the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and without any basis and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.”

            In the present case, it is to be noted that complainant could not avail the opportunity to cross-examine the witness of OP,so that discriminatory could be elicited from the witness of OP in cross-examination. Rather evidence of OP witness has strengthened the case of OP, Once OP has succeeded in proving that complainant himself has failed to discharge his burden, as such no fault can be attributed to OP.

                We have meticulously perused notice issued by Principal on, 15/12/2014.Perusal whereof reveals as under:

  Dear Parents,

              This is for your kind information that the REGISTRATION for class 1^st of U.K.G.students of JESUS CARES CONVENT SCHOOL will start from 7^th Jan 2015 to 8^th Jan 2015.There are only 50 seats for class 1^st.So, kindly make sure that if you are interested to continue your child to study here further, please fill up and submit the registration form on the mentioned date only and get your childs name registered for Class 1^st for the session 2015-16.In case you fail to do so no high approach shall be taken into consideration and you may have to change the school of your child.Well be highly thankful for the same and send the child with  our blessings.

               The pattern continues to be purely C.B.S.E from 1^st to 5^th also.

Sd/-                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                    Principal                                                                                         

                There is no challenge to the notice issued by Principal , dated, 15-12-2014,therefore,we feel no hesitation in placing reliance on the same.

                In the aforequoted back drop, we hold that complainant failed to prove deficiency in service or any un fair trade practice on the part of OP,therefore,complaint fails, accordingly same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the matter parties are left to bear their own costs. File after its due compilation be consigned to records.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 

                                                                                    

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

    16-10-2018                                                                       Jammu.

Agreed by

                                                               

 Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member