DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.243 of 2012

Neeraj Kumar,

S/o Sri Murlidhar,

R/o IInd Floor, 13/47,

Kabir Marg, Clay Square,

                                                                   ……Complainant

Versus

The Manager,

La Martiniere Girls College,

Lucknow.

                                                                              .......Opp. Party

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OP for compensation and legal expenses of Rs.1,32,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he is the father of Anushka Srivastava and wanted her daughter to be admitted in lower preparatory in the institution of OP and had deposited requisite fee of Rs.650.00 as required by the OP. Thereafter the Complainant filled the form of admission and completed all the requirements necessary for admission of her daughter in the class of lower preparatory. But the Complainant’s daughter was not called for interview on 17.01.2012 for admission of lower preparatory and the form was rejected with the allegation that the Complainant had submitted extra documents. The OP had no right to reject the form if extra documents were submitted. He had only right of rejection when the applicant did not fulfill requisite requirement which was necessary. The rejection of the applicant form was absolutely incorrect. The Complainant approached the OP several times but they did not pay any heed, hence this complaint.

-2-

The OP has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant is the father of Anushka Srivastava who had applied for admission of his daughter in La Martiniere Girls College, Lucknow in lower preparatory class-2012/13. The admission form of Anushka Srivastava was rejected by the school authorities after proper scrutiny and verification as the said application form was not filled by the Complainant on behalf of his daughter as required by the rules and regulations governing the filling and submission of admission form. Alongwith the application form for admission to Lower Preparatory a complete set of instructions were supplied to the parents/guardians containing detailed instructions for filling up the admission form correctly and clearly stating that “any enclosure other than those required will result in the application form being rejected.” The application form submitted by the Complainant in regard to his daughter’s admission had annexure other than those required in the admission form and was duly rejected by the school authorities as per the instructions/rules governing the submission of admission forms for Lower Preparatory-2012/2013. The Complainant had only applied for admission of his daughter in Lower Preparatory 2012/2013 and the admission form of his daughter was rejected as per rules. Under no circumstances the applicant who had only applied for admission could be treated as “consumer” as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and could prefer a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the school authorities. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

          The Complainant has filed rejoinder affidavit.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 4 annexures. The OP has filed the affidavit of Farida Abraham, Principal, La Martiniere Girls’ College with 2 annexures.

-3-

Heard Counsel for the OP but none appeared to argue the case from the side of the Complainant.

Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act or not. It is also to be seen as to whether the Complainant’s daughter’s form for admission was wrongly rejected by the OP or not and whether the OP has committed unfair trade practice or not?

We first take up the point as to whether the Complainant is a consumer or not. In this regard, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the OP that the Complainant is a not a consumer on the ground that the OP is an educational institution and therefore the student cannot be considered as consumer. Ruling of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has also been cited wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.2605 (M/S) of 2012 La Martiniere College Lucknow through its Principal Vs Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission & others on 11.05.2012 has held that “Prima-facie, imparting the education to the students cannot be said to be rendering service to anybody rather the teachers teach the students of their courses for promotion of their career in the various fields without having any component of business activity. The teacher as well as students both maintain very pious relationship. By means of teaching the student, the teachers inject the cultural awareness, different activities in the students to build up their career. The fee paid against them cannot be said to be a consideration as is defined under the Act rather it is called only a tuition fee” but this ruling is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as here the matter is not with regard to the students viz.-a-viz. teachers. Here the instant point involved is that the Complainant submitted the form of his daughter for admission in the school of the OP which was rejected by the OP on the ground that there were more documents than required by them by the applicants to file with the application form. Another

-4-

ground was that the form was not filled by the Complainant on behalf of the daughter as was required under the rules. So, only this is to be seen as to whether the rejection of the form on the basis of aforesaid grounds was valid for rejection of the form or not. And since the Complainant has paid the cost of the form, hence he is consumer in this regard.

Now we come to the main issue as to whether the OP has committed unfair trade practice in rejecting the form of the Complainant’s daughter on the aforesaid grounds or not.The OP has raised objection regarding the form not being filled correctly and one of the grounds is that the form was not filled by the Complainant on behalf of the daughter as was required under the rules and regulations. There does not appear to be any merit in this objection as for the form it appears that only parents’ signatures were to be appended and the parents had duly signed on the space provided in the form for the parents’ signatures which has been properly done by the Complainant and his wife.

Another ground for rejection of the form is that the application form was enclosed with more documents than were required. It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the OP that the Complainant had submitted his daughter’s application form annexing therewith more enclosures than those required by the admission form, therefore the application form was rejected on the ground that the Complainant’s daughter’s form was having more enclosures than were required and since this was the instruction supplied to the parents/guardians for filling up the admission form correctly and clearly it was stated that “any enclosures other than those required will result in the admission form being rejected, hence the form was rejected”, hence the form was rejected. It is noticeable that the form was not rejected because certain documents which were required were not submitted by the Complainant. The ground of rejection is that the Complainant

-5-

had submitted more documents than were required by the OP with regard to the admission in Lower Preparatory. Now this condition that the form will be rejected if it had more enclosures than what were required appears to be absolutely arbitrary and without any justification whatsoever. Just because a person files more documents than were required in the institution, his form is to be cancelled is mockery of the system and therefore this condition on the basis of which the form was rejected defies logic, therefore putting up such a condition for filling up the admission form by the OP is an unfair trade practice as the condition is devoid of any logic or semblance of reasoning. It is expected of a valued and esteemed institution like La Martiniere to make reasonable conditions for filling up the form of admission etc. In fact no such unreasonable and illogical condition for the applicants to fill up the forms of admission, is expected of any institution much less the institution of OP. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record, it is clear that the OP has committed serious unfair trade practice in rejecting the form on the basis of an arbitrary condition, therefore obviously great injustice has been done to the Complainant, hence he is entitled to compensation for the harassment caused to him in this regard. It is also necessary that a direction to the OP be issued to strike out the condition “any enclosures other than those required will result in the admission form being rejected” from the set of instructions being supplied to the parents/guardians for filling up the admission form, therefore the OP is also directed to strike out the condition “any enclosures other than those required will result in the admission form being rejected” from the set of instructions being supplied to the parents/guardians for filling up the admission form. The conditions such as put by the OP smack of a design to find out an excuse to reject the forms in an arbitrary manner, therefore as the OP has committed unfair trade practice in rejecting the form on the

-6-

basis of an arbitrary condition the Complainant is entitled to compensation for the harassment caused to him in that regard. He is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed to strike out the condition “any enclosures other than those required will result in the admission form being rejected” from the set of instructions being supplied to the parents/guardians for filling up the admission form.

          The OP is also directed to pay Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation to the Complainant.

The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

  (Rajarshi Shukla)                           (Vijai Varma)

          Member                                         President    

Dated:  11   December, 2015