BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 87/2004 Filed on 11.02.2004

Dated : 15.10.2010

Complainant:

Mahesh Kumar, 14-D, Cliff Dale Appartments, Nanthencode, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)

Opposite parties :

1. Asha Panicker Menon, Managing Trustee, Dhruv Educational Trust, (Regd.), 'Gurukul', Mukkola P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 044.

    

   (By adv. K.K. Rajeev Punnapuram)

    

2. Vimala Menon, Principal, 'Gurukul', Mukkola P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 044.

This O.P having been heard on 31.08.2010, the Forum on 15.10.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: The 1^st opposite party under Dhruv Educational Trust is running a school crescened as 'Gurukul' at Mukkola, Thiruvananthapuram, mainly intended to impart 'quality education' to the children as contained in the prospectus. The daughter of the complainant Miss Shreya Maheshkumar was admitted to UKG section of the school, attracted by the tall promises regarding standard of education and over all development of the child as given in the prospectus and other print outs issued by the school. It is also claimed that 'the Gurukul' has been registered as a Charitable non-profitable institution committed to the cause of good education. According to the school, the complainant had to pay Rs. 36,000/- towards deposit in addition to Admission fee and Registration fee etc. The 2^nd opposite party has collected an amount of Rs. 31,160/- from the complainant in 4 installments in addition to the tuition fee of Rs. 950/- and bus fare of Rs. 675/- per month. It is clearly discernible from the fee structure that the motto of the school is to run it as an income generating instrumentality. Collecting huge sums as deposits, tuition fees and bus fare is highly unethical and unreasonable from the point of charity. Contrary to the promises given by the 2^nd opposite party at the time of admission and as brought in the prospectus, it is experienced that the student had to surmount untold difficulties during the period she was undergoing education in the school such as untimely transportation, non-caring of the child and rude behaviour of the teachers who are expected to be the living models to the children. On account of the condition not conclusive to the growth of the child as promised in the prospectus and as the student was not willing to go to school, the complainant was compelled to withdraw the child from the school. Till the withdrawal of the student all the tuition fees and bus fare dues have been paid promptly and correctly in addition to Rs. 31,160/- paid as deposit. A legal notice was served on the opposite parties on 12.11.2003 demanding refund of Rs. 31,160/- paid as deposit and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. But in their reply to the legal notice, they have stated that the claim and demands made in the notice are not tenable and they are willing to refund only Rs. 6,540/- out of the deposit of Rs. 31,160/-. Deducting tuition fees and transport fees for the entire academic year in addition to forfailure of huge sums as admission fee and registration fee and other term fees is contrary to the object of charity. The complainant would not have withdrawn the child from the school but for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties to impart quality stress free education as promised. The indulgence of the Hon'ble Forum against this trend is highly, imperative and the complainant is left with no alternative than approaching this Hon'ble Forum for efficatious remedy against deficiency in service of the opposite parties. The acts of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and is to be redressed under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.

The 1^st opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: That the complainant's daughter Shreya Mahesh Kumar was a student in UKG in this opposite party's school. At the time of admission she was a total stranger to this opposite party. The complainant voluntarily opted to admit his child in the school of this opposite party after due enquiries and verifications and after making thorough discussions with the other parents whose children are admitted in the said school. It is submitted that before admitting his child, being a highly educated and qualified man, the complainant has meticulously read, studied and understood the Rules and Regulations, the prospectus of the said school and accepted the same and it was with free and full consent of his own, the complainant opted to admit his child in the said school of this opposite party. This opposite party had made clear to the complainant orally as well as, as per the fee card that each and every student admitted in the opposite party's school has to pay a Non-refundable advance of Rs. 11,000/- and a refundable advance of Rs. 25,000/-, apart from the monthly fees, van fees etc. and the above mentioned advance amounts are to be paid in full at the time of admission of the child. Though the above said deposits/advances are to be compulsorily paid at the time of admission, on the specific request by the complainant to pay the same in installments, this opposite party as a gesture of goodwill allowed the complainant to make the payments in installments and hence the complainant had paid only Rs. 15,000/- i.e; Rs. 11,000/- towards payment of the non-refundable advance and Rs. 4,000/- towards part payment of refundable advances, on 01.04.2003, at the time of admission. After repeated requests made by this opposite party, on 12.05.2003 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards refundable deposit. On specific demands made by this opposite party the complainant has paid Rs. 3,80/- each on 09.06.2003 and 23.07.2003 towards payment of the refundable deposit including interest for late payment. Thus it is true that the complainant has made a total payment of Rs. 31,160/- i.e; to say Rs. 11,000/- towards non-refundable deposit and Rs. 20,160/- towards refundable deposit. The complainant had not in fact made the full payment of the refundable deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. The teacher-student ratio of the school is fixed as 1:6, the purpose of which is to give individual care and attention to each and every student of the school. The teachers working in the opposite party's school are well qualified and trained and so far no complaints whatsoever have been raised against them from any corner, in their performance. As per the Rules and Regulations, the prospectus of the said school for admission, it was specifically read, understood and accepted by the complainant the Rules and Regulations in the prospectus under the head “WITHDRAWALS” which states that generally withdrawal of students during school are not allowed, that normally if a student is to be withdrawn for reasons beyond the control of the parents/guardian, three calendar months notice must be given and that admission fees, registration fees and other term fees will not be refunded if the students is withdrawn after admission. Further it is also stated that the tuition fees and transport fees for the academic year will be deducted from the refundable deposit, in the case of withdrawal of the students after the commencement of the school year, that transfer certificate will be issued only after all bills are cleared, that refundable deposit will be paid provided the school received three months notice prior to the child's last days in the school (before 31^st December) and if all dues to the school have been cleared and that in the case where insufficient notice is given the refundable deposit will be forfeited to the school in lieu of lost income. The complainant has read, understood, accepted and signed the said Rules and Regulations. Inspite of this condition the complainant has not given any notice to this opposite party before withdrawal of his daughter. The complainant was not prompt in making the payment of fees and other deposits. The staff and the management of the school were very kind, lenient and submissive to the complainant's daughter. The complainant's daughter was very fond of this opposite party and the other staff and used to express her happiness when she saw them outside the school even after she was withdrawn from the opposite party's school. The complainant had issued a letter dated 26.09.2003 to this opposite party stating that “Due to personal inconvenience caused to the child Shreya Mahesh Kumar, we have decided to change her school with immediate effect” and obtained the transfer. From the above letter of the complainant it is very clear that the child was withdrawn from the school for no fault on the part of this opposite party and hence the averments in the complaint as well as the lawyer's notice are only an after thought. This opposite party is not legally liable to make any payment to the complainant as per the Rules and Regulations, the prospectus, as well as the fee card but the opposite party was always ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 6,540/- after making the contemplated deductions as a gesture of good will. This opposite party has collected the amounts from the complainant only as per the Rules and Regulations in the prospectus as well as the fee card. The school is run without any grant or funding from Government or outside agencies and are solely depending on school fees, deposits etc. for meeting the huge expenses. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party since the complainant himself withdrew the child voluntarily. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed for in the complaint. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on the part of the complainant. DW1 has been examined on behalf of the 1^st opposite party and Exts. D1 to D10 were marked on their behalf.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

Points (i) & (ii):- There is no dispute that the complainant's daughter Shreya Mahesh Kumar was a student of the opposite party school. The allegation of the complainant is that his daughter who was very industrious with learning habits became reluctant to go to 'Gurukul' and that the complainant was forced to withdraw the child from the school on account of the attitude of the teachers to the child and that the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 31,160/- advanced at the time of admission of the child. The 1^st opposite party contends that the complainant's daughter had been very happy at the school of the opposite party and that the teacher student ratio in the school is fixed as 1:6 so as to give individual attention to each and every student in the school and that the complainant, after thorough discussions and accepting the Rules and Regulations, the prospectus and after being convinced with the fee structure, got his daughter admitted in the opposite party's school.

At this juncture the aspect to be looked into is whether the complainant has been forced to withdraw her child from the school due to the deficient act of the opposite parties. Complainant admits that he had admitted her child to UKG section attracted by the promises in the prospectus and printouts issued by the school. So he has voluntarily admitted his child in the opposite party's school. Ext. P2 series contain the cash receipts for payment of fees. Ext. P3 is the lawyer's notice sent on behalf of the complainant for refund of the amount and for compensation. As per Ext. D6, the complainant has requested the opposite party that 'due to personal inconvenience caused to the child Shreya Mahesh Kumar, we have decided to change her school with immediate effect'. Opposite parties have contended that as per Rules & Regulations, the prospectus of the school, normally if a student is to be withdrawn for reasons beyond the control of the parents/guardian, three calendar months notice must be given and that admission fees, registration fees and other term fees will not be refunded if the student is withdrawn after admission. As per Ext. D1 the tuition fees and transport fees for the academic year will be deducted from the refundable deposit in the case of withdrawal of the student after the commencement of the school year. Further in Ext. D1, it has been stated that refundable deposit will only be paid by the 'Gurukul', provided the school receives 3 months notice prior to the child's last day in the school(before 31^st December) and if all dues to the school have been cleared. In the case where insufficient notice is given the refundable deposit will be forfeit to the school in lieu of lost income. The complainant as PW1 has deposed to the question that school-ല്‍ നിന്ന് മകളെ withdraw ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് മുന്പ് notice കൊടുത്തിരുന്നുവോ

(Q) 3 months notice ഞാന്‍ കൊടുത്തിരുന്നില്ല (A) Furthermore to the question put forward by the counsel for the opposite party, the complainant had deposed that “Terms and conditions പ്രകാരം 3 months notice കൊടുക്കാതെ withdraw ചെയ്യുകയാണെങ്കില്‍ admission fee, registration fee and other term fees will not be refunded എന്ന് അറിയാമോ (Q) Yes (A)”. The important point to be noted is that the complainant has signed in the prospectus and has agreed to abide by the Rules & Regulations. The learned counsel for the complainant had argued that there is no contract signed by the complainant at the time of admission of the child and referred to the decision in N. Arjunan Vs. Dean Merit Swiss Asian School of Hotel Management reported in 2005(1) CPR 516 that terms contained in prospectus are not treated as contract between parties. But the counsel for the opposite party has produced the decision of Hon'ble National Commission reported in 1(1996) CPJ 37 (NC) that 'we do not think it necessary to go into the question whether the rule in the prospectus about the non-refund of fee is unconscionable or not, in detail. Suffice it to say that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. It is for the civil court to determine this point'.

In the light of the above discussions and rulings we find that the complainant has miserably failed in establishing his complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is at liberty to collect the amount admitted by the opposite parties.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of October 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 87/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - R. Mahesh Kumar

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of pamphlet

P2 - Copy of cash receipts

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 12.11.2003

P4 - Copy of letter dated 09.06.2003

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Rajamma Panicker

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Rules and Regulations

D2 - Copy of School fees in Indian Rupees

D3 - Copy of letter dated 26.10.2004

D4 - Original photograph

D5 - Copy of letter dated 14.04.2003.

D6 - Copy of letter dated 26.09.2003

D7 - Copy of letter dated 03.11.2003.

D8 - Copy of letter dated 29.11.2003.

D9 - Acknowledgement card

D10 -

PRESIDENT

jb