PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Succinctly put, the complainant took admission in 6th class of the OP school for the session 2010-11 and deposited admission fee of Rs.15,900/- on 17.2.2010. He was told that the classes would start on 7.4.2010. He also appeared in the test for admission to St. John School, Sector 26, Chandigarh on 27.2.2010, result of which was declared on 25.3.2010 and he was successful. After considering his options he decided to take admission in St. John School and deposited fee of Rs.11,135/-. Thereafter, he surrendered the seat in the OP school before the start of the classes i.e. 31.3.2010 and sought refund. He contacted the OP number of times and on 12.5.2010 they handed over the cheque dated 12.4.2010 for Rs.3,000/- only against the deposit of Rs.15,900/- which caused a great deal of harassment/mental tension to him. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. In their written reply the OP did not dispute the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been stated that the deposit of fee was towards admission and tuition fee for three months which was non refundable in view of rules of payment of school dues mentioned at page 30 of the school diary and further the rules regarding the non-refund of the fees and other charges were duly displayed on the notice board which were never challenged by the complainant. It has been pleaded that the caution money of Rs.3,000/- was refunded to the complainant after making deductions as per school rules. It has been denied that no loss was caused to the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. The main dispute between the parties is only with regard to the total fee refund of Rs.15,900/- paid by the complainant`s father to the OP school vide Annexure C-1 dated 17.02.2010. The contention of the father of the complainant is that after considering the options, he decided to admit his son in St. John School and deposited fee of Rs.11,135/- vide Annexure C-2 (colly.) and thereafter, he surrendered the seat in the OP school vide surrender letter dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure C-3) and that too before the start of the classes of the OP school but the OP refunded only Rs.3,000/- against the deposit of Rs.15,900/-. 6. Whereas on the other hand the OP contended that the deposit of fee was towards admission and tuition fee for three months which was nonrefundable in view of rules of payment of school dues mentioned at page 30 of the school diary (now marked AnnexureR-1). The caution money of Rs.3,000/- was refunded to the complainant after making deductions as per school rules. 7. Admittedly the fee was deposited in the OP school on 17.02.2010 and the session was to be started on 7.04.2010 and the request for surrender of the seat of the son of the complainant was received by the OP school on 31.03.2010 i.e. before 07 days of the start of the session/classes. It has also been proved by the complainant that his son got admission in St. John`s High School for which Rs.6,135/- vide fee receipt Annexure C-2 and Rs.5000/- vide receipt Annexure C-2A was paid by the complainant on 31.03.2010 and that too also before 07 days of the start of the session/classes of the OP school. 8. The OP has referred to class diary, according to which the fees once paid is not refundable except caution money. It is pertinent to mention here that every student would be keen to study in the school which has a better reputation and if the complainant was seeking admission in another school and thereafter sought refund of the fees, as the complainant did not intend to pursue study with the OP school and that too before the start of the session/classes of the OP school, no fault can be found in the action of the complainant/father of the complainant requesting for refund of the fees. There is no justification to retain the fees, when the student has not come to study and no service was rendered by the OP to the complainant. 9. Otherwise also, the OP has not been able to prove that the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant. The onus to prove this was certainly on the OP, however, the OP has not been able to prove it and has not produced any evidence or document to show that the seat vacated by the complainant is still lying vacant thereby causing any financial loss to them. Further, in our view it is immaterial whether the seat remains vacant or not, the service provider cannot forfeit the entire fees or consideration amount for the services, which it has neither provided nor the student has received such services and as such the forfeiture of the fees in toto (except security/caution money) is not justified and if there is any such term of the contract of the school diary, the same is surely an unconscionable contract and therefore void and not binding on the complainant. In our opinion, the educational schools/institutions cannot be permitted to behave like a business establishments, who work with profit motive. The OP school is an education institution/school and cannot act like commercial establishment and there is no justification on the part of the OP in retaining the substantial fees paid by a student, who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said school/institution. A similar view has also been taken by the Hon`ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case Sh. Atam Parkash Khatter & another vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana & others, Civil Writ Petition No. 13308 of 2009. Here we can also refer to the judgment of the Hon`ble
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3432 of 2009 in case Shri Saravpreet Singh Vs. The Principal Lala Lajpat Rai Institute Of Engineering & Technology & Anr wherein it was held that as under:- “In view of the above clear guidelines applicable to both Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Institutions, they cannot be allowed to take plea of their advertisement and condition contained therein to deny refund of fees and other charges to the petitioner/complainant. In fact, we find that the present case is squarely covered by the two judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner/complainant. It is mentioned in the two judgments supra that the guidelines issued by the United Grants Commission also provide for refund of fees in cases such as the present one before us. In the circumstances, the revision of the complainant/petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside. Respondent No.1 – Institute is accordingly directed to refund the entire amount of fees deposited by the complainant with it at the time of taking admission along with Rs.7,500/- which was received by the Institute from Respondent No.2- University. However, Respondent No.1 – Institute shall be free to deduct a processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- while refunding the amount of fees to the complainant. The refund of fees after deducting processing fee upto Rs.1,000/- shall be paid by the Respondent No.1 – Institute within a period of 3 weeks from the date of this order failing which, the Respondent No.1 – Institute shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of actual refund. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs”. |
9. In our view, if at all the OP can deduct some amount towards the processing fee/Administrative charges etc. and the balance amount should be refunded. Therefore, we are of the view that the OP was unjustified in their act by retaining the total fees of Rs.15,900/- of the complainant. The OP should have, at the most, deducted a sum of Rs.1000/- only, towards processing fee/Administrative charges etc., which they have incurred at the time of making the admission of the complainant. 10. In view of above referred judgments, discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OP was deficient and unjustified in its act. Accordingly, the complaint having sufficient merit is allowed. The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.11,900/- (i.e. after deducting Rs.1000/- as service/processing/administrative charges and Rs.3000/- which has already been refunded to the complainant) alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,500/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.07.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant besides paying the litigation costs of Rs.5,500/-. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- Sd/- 25.11.2010 | [Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | Rg | Member | | Presiding Member |
| | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |
