DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No : 300 OF 2010 Date of Institution : 14.05.2010 Date of Decision : 23.11.2011 Jai Kumar Setia, R/o H.No. 32, Sector 17, Panchkula. ---Complainant V E R S U SK.B. D.A.V. Senior Secondary Public School, through its Principal, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv proxy for Complainant. Sh. Deepak Arora, Adv for the OP. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1] The instant complaint involves alleged malpractice by the OP for non-refund of fee on the request for cancellation of the admission. Briefly stated, the Complainant had taken admission for his daughter in the Nursery class of the OP, and deposited a sum of Rs.14,110/- in cash for the session starting April, 2009. Due to personal reasons, the Complainant wished for discontinuation of admission and requested the OP for refund of the amount, vide letter dated 20/02/2009. The OP accordingly, cancelled the admission, but issued a refund Cheque for Rs.3000/- only. Rs.11,110/- was retained by the OP. The Complainant has alleged that he could not understand the reason for the said deduction, as his daughter had not attended the School for a single day and cancellation was requested long before start of the new session. The Complainant has attached documentary evidence, as well as legal notice issued to the OP, in proof of his averments. The Complainant has, thus, filed this complaint, alleging deficiency in service by the OP for withholding and non-payment of the balance amount. He has prayed for refund of the withheld amount, along with interest and compensation. 2] After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. OP in their reply has taken the preliminary objection that there was no agreement between the parties for refund of the amount of the installment of fee paid. The Complainant has already received a refund of Rs.3000/- vide cheque dated 26/02/2009 and no protest was lodged, except the letter dated 25/08/2009, which is after about six months. OP has further submitted that as per the admission notice displayed at the time of admissions, it was made clear in bold letters “DUES ONCE DEPOSITED ARE NON REFUNDABLE EXCEPT CAUTION MONEY”. Hence, the Complainant could no be refunded the whole amount. On merits, the OP has contended that once the Complainant had accepted the terms & conditions of the admission, which included refund of security only, he cannot now, claim for the balance amount, as the rules do not permit so. OP has, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5] The lis between the parties involves non-refund of admission fee paid by the Complainant, at the time of admission of his minor daughter in the Nursery class of the OP. Out of total amount of Rs.14,110/-, the OP has only refunded Rs.3,000/-. The OP has not given any detail about the heads under which the remaining money was taken, and is now being retained. Also,the OP has not placed on record any CBSE Guidelines/ Govt. Guidelines, by which they could frame such rules and refuse refund of fee, especially, when the child has not attend the school for even one day. 6] To our mind, refusal by the OP to refund the amount paid by the Complainant is definitely an unfair trade practice, especially when the seat would have definitely been filled by them in the intermediary period. They could, at the most, retain a nominal fee towards administrative charges only. 7] The Complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case Trustee, Shree Swaminarayan Institute of Technology Versus Pravinaben J. Upadhyaya, I (2004) CPJ 183, wherein it was held that the OPs would be liable to refund the fee paid, especially when no details of the amount have been given on record. The OPs had been directed to refund the fee retained. The Complainant has also placed on record other judgments of other courts, wherein also the educational institutions had been directed to refund the fee, as retention of fee amounted to deficiency in service. 8] Placing reliance on these judgments, we also feel that when the OP has not been able to specifically clarify on what account the fee has been retained and why is it necessary to retain the same, the retention of the fee in the given circumstances would surely amount to deficiency in service, especially when the child has not studied in the school for even a single day and the Complainant has made the request for refund much much prior to the start of the session. 9] In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund the balance fee paid by the Complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. The OP may, however, retain a sum of Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges out of this amount. The OP will also pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. 10] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay interest on the decretal amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 11] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 23.11.2011 Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
