BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st of October 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.263/2010
(Admitted on 08.10.2010)
Mr.Gangadhara,
So. Thimmappa Gowda,
Aged about 48 years,
Ra. Marakkada,
Kolmadka Post & Village,
Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Sanjay D).
VERSUS
1. Managing Trustee,
K.S. Gowda Educational Trustee ®,
Varsha Nagar, Ninthikal
Yenmur Post, Sullia Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada.
2. Head Master,
K.S.G. Kannada & English Medium School,
Vidya Saraswathi Nagar,
Ivothoklu, Nellikatte, Panja,
Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.Udayananda A)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submitted that, his two minor children aged about 10 years and 6 years are studying in the school of the 2nd Opposite Party. The eldest child was studying from 6 years and the younger child was studying for the last two years.
It is stated that, the Complainant’s house is situated 10 kms away from the school and the Opposite Parties have provided school bus service for the students. The Complainant is paying Rs.500/- each per month to the Opposite Party for providing school bus service. It is stated that, the Complainant has been paid a total amount of Rs.12,000/- to the 1st Opposite Party on behalf of his two children for the last two years and Rs.6,000/- on behalf of one child for earlier 4 years. As per the instructions the school bus pick up the children in the morning and drop in the evening.
It is stated that, in the last week of July 2010 the school bus did not come for 10 days to pick up the Complainant’s children. Hence the Complainant gave a complaint to the 2nd Opposite Party even though the school bus did not come to pick up the children and the Complainant had made alternative arrangement to send the children to the school. Thereafter again in the 1st week of August 2010 the school bus did not come to pick up the Complainant’s children, once again the Complainant lodged a complaint to the 2nd Opposite Party but the same problem repeated and the school bus service is stopped from 23.08.2010. Because of the above, the Complainant’s children have lost classes and unable to study. Feeling aggrieved by the above, the Complainant issued a lawyer’s notice dated 28.08.2010 to the Opposite Parties and the same was served on 31.08.2010 but the Opposite Parties not complied the demand made therein. It is stated that the Opposite Parties are duty bound to give school bus service to the Complainant’s children but the Opposite Parties failed, hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to provide school bus service to the Complainant’s children uninterruptedly and also claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version stated that the children of the Complainant were studying in the school belonging to the Opposite Parties since 2009-10. It is denied that the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the 1st Opposite Party on behalf of the children for the last two years and Rs.6,000/- on behalf of one child for the earlier four years. It is stated that, the children of the Complainant got admitted to the K.S.Gowda Kannada and English Medium School only during the academic year 2009-10. Prior to the said period two children were studying in Sainik Vidyalaya, Panja. It is stated that the children of the Complainant were travelling in Mahindra Jeep belonging to one Chinnappa Gowda upto July 2010. The said Chinnappa Gowda is collecting the school travelling allowances from the respective parents and he has no connection with the Opposite Party School. Further it is stated that, in the month of July 2010 they have purchased the school bus. In the month of August 2010 in the parents’ meeting the school committee informed about the inconvenience to ply the bus in the road leading to the house of the Complainant on account of non-maintenance of the road as well as the dangerous hillocks through which the school bus is to be run. For the said reasons the school bus was stopped and there was no deficiency. Further stated that, no fee much less than Rs.12,000/- was paid to the Complainant to the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Gangadhara (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. One Smt.Vanitha (CW2) – wife of the Complainant / witness of the Complainant filed affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on her. The Complainant produced 9 (nine) documents as listed in the annexure in detail. One Mr.Ashok Kumar K.S (RW1), President of the K.S. Gowda Educational Trust filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, it is admitted that the Complainant’s two children studying in Opposite Party’s school for the academic year 2009-10. It is also admitted that, the school bus purchased in the month of July 2010.
Now the dispute is that, Complainant came up with a complaint stating that, the Opposite Parties despite of taking Rs.500/- each per month not provided the school bus service to the children of the Complainant and thereby they have put to hardship and loss.
The Opposite Parties denied the same and stated that they have not received Rs.12,000/- on behalf of his two children for last two years and Rs.6,000/- on behalf of one child for earlier four years. They stated that, only in the month of July 2010 the school bus was purchased and in the month of August 2010 on account of non-maintenance of the road as well as the dangerous hillocks through which the school bus is to be run, in the parents’ meeting informed about the inconvenience to ply the school bus and stopped the school bus service.
The Complainant as well as his wife filed oral evidence by way of affidavits and produced Ex C1 to C9. Opposite Parties also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, in the instant case there is no contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party school that the Opposite Party shall provide the school bus service to the children of the Complainant and also there is no advance consideration received from the Complainant towards the school bus service. We noted that whenever the school bus service was used by the Complainant’s children, the Complainant paid the school bus service charge after using of the service. When that being so, the Complainant cannot force the Opposite Party school to provide a school bus service to all the children. It is the look after of the parents to see the travelling arrangements to send their children to any of the schools. No doubt, the school purchased the school bus but one cannot force the school to run the school bus even the road is not in condition or in any other reason. If the school stopped the school bus service it is the duty of every parent to arrange the travelling service to their children. They cannot blame the school in this regard.
We observed that, even in the instant case, the Opposite Party School not received any consideration in advance and also there is no promise or contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. In the absence of the same, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In view of the above discussion, we feel that there is no substance in the complaint and deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Gangadhara – Complainant.
CW2 – Smt.Vanitha – wife of the Complainant / witness of the Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Doc. No.1 – 19.06.2010: Copy of the receipt for payment of fees for Kum.Shankitha.
Doc.No.2 – 29.06.2010: Copy of the receipt for payment of fees for Kum.Lokeshwari.
Doc.No.3 – 07.07.2010: Copy of the Bus route card of Kum.Shankitha.
Doc.No.4 – 07.07.2010: Copy of the bus route card of Kum.Lokeshwari.
Doc. No.5 – 28.08.2010: Copy of the lawyer’s notice issued to the Opposite Parties.
Doc. No.6 & 7 – Postal acknowledgements (2 in numbers).
Doc. No.8 – 09.09.2010: Reply of the Opposite Parties.
Doc. No.9 – 04.12.2010: Original receipt for payment of hiring charges.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Mr.Ashok Kumar K.S, President of the K.S. Gowda Educational Trust.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Dated:31.10.2011 PRESIDENT
