BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 02.09.2013

Date of Order : 31.12.2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 620/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

V,K. Beena Kumari, Member

A brief statement of facts of this consumer complaint is as follows :

The complainant Shri Deepak M.K. Has filed this complaint against the 1^st opposite party Manager of Sydney Montessori School, Kakkad and against the 2^nd opposite party the head office of the Sydney Montessori School at Kottayam District, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and seeking direction of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.46,000/- collected towards registration fee and establishment fee from the complainant during the period from 11/02/2013 to 04/06/2013. It is submitted that the complainant's twin sons Parthiv Deepak and Pranav Deepak got admission to the 1^st opposite party school to avail the baby-sit facility and they attended the school from 11.02.2013 to 05.06.2013, that the children were given descent care for the 1^st two months and thereafter from April, 2013 onwards children were not given proper care or were given least care. One day the children were made to starve and on two occasions one of his sons was handed over to the complainant with the motion he passed still in the trouser and on another day the complainant's son came home wearing someoneelse's underwear. It is submitted that the complainant came across several situations where the hygiene of the kids was compromised. The request of the complainant to get appointment to meet the Manager Shri K.J.Joseph was purposefully postponed. In the above circumstances the complainant decided to stop sending his kids to the 1^st opposite party school. The complainant was not given a reply to the letter sent the Secretary of the 2^nd opposite party. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint seeking an order of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund Rs.46,000/- remitted towards registration fee and establishment fee.

2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing their version contending as follows:-

The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. All the allegations in the complaint are baseless and unfounded hence denied. The 1^st opposite party is in fact the Managing Director of ' Sydney Montessori Schools ' having its head office at Kottayam and its branches all over Kerala State. All the institutions of the opposite parties provide the highest standards of care and value based education to children and help them in their character formation, personality development, communication skills etc. The opposite parties had won several awards and many recognitions. The opposite parties have limited the entry of children between 1½ to 2½ years to 10 in the Babysit section and the twin sons of the complainant were admitted to the Babysit section on 08.02.2013 and they attended the school till 05.06.2013. From 9.30am to 3.30 pm the opposite parties are providing juice/milk, breakfast with oats/ragi/health mix, vegetarian lunch, junior horlicks, etc. to the children in the Babysit section. The teaching staff are required to stay in the school all along in order to provide total care and attention to children. The non-teaching staff are also residing in the school premises. The school functions on hartal days and on public holidays also. The school is having air conditioned class rooms and dormitory, play rooms with indoor-play equipments, staff rooms, fully fledged kitchen with experienced cooks etc. The opposite parties stand by the commitments. The 1^st allegation of the complainant that the gate was locked when he arrived at the school and the staff arrived only at 8.45 am is against facts since both the teaching and non teaching staff are residing in the school premises itself and the gate was kept open from 7 am on all days. The allegation that the twin sons of the complainant were starving the whole day is denied. The allegation that the staff asked the complainant to get permission from the 1^st opposite party whose office is put up at Kottayam is denied. It is submitted that the opposite parties cannot be made liable or answerable to the erroneous understanding of the complainant about the administrative staff of the institution by name M.S. Teenu who took leave on medical grounds. The institution gives topmost priority to the hygiene of all the kids in the Babysit Section who are very limited in number and there were no complaints from any other parents regarding the change of dresses. It is submitted that the complainant insisted to see the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party travelled all the way from Kottayam to Kakkanad to meet the complainant. But the complainant did not turn up on that day. It is submitted that there were no valid reasons for the complainant to stop sending his sons to the opposite party school. In fact the complainant was inventing reasons to shift his children from the school. The opposite parties contended that there had been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the children of the complainant were looked after in the best possible manner and the accusations of the complainant are only imaginary and cooked up stories with a view to mislead the Forum and at any rate the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed. It is prayed that the complainant may be dismissed with exemplary costs to the opposite parties.

3. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence of PW1, the complainant and documentary evidences marked as Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of DW1, the 2^nd opposite party and the documentary evidence marked as Exts. B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The Counsel for the parties were heard.

5. From the pleadings of the complainant and the opposite parties, the following issues came up for the consideration of this Forum :

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there was

   deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

2. If so, whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the

   amount of Rs.46,000/- collected from the complainant

   towards registration fee and establishment fee for the

   complainant's twin sons ?

3. Relief and costs.

6. Issue No. (i) :

The complainant 's twin sons Masters Parthiv Deepak and Pranav Deepak were admitted to the Babysit Section of the Sydney Montessori School at Kakkanad. The 1^st opposite party Shri K.J. Joseph is the Managing Director of the Sydney Montessori Schools established all over the State of Kerala and the office of the 1^st opposite party is at Kottayam District. The complainant's case is that his twin sons aged 1½ years were admitted to the Babysit category in Sydney Montessori School at Kakkanad, They were not given proper care by the staff of the school inspite of the fact that high fees towards registration and establishment fees were collected from the complainant. The complainant deposed before this Forum that proper care was given top his children during the 1^st 2 months in the school and thereafter i.e. during April and May, 2013 the children were not given proper care and the hygiene of the children were not maintained. The complainant's twin sons attended the Babysit section of the school for the period from 11.02.2013 to 05.06.2013 i.e. for four months. One of the incidents pointed out by the complainant is that one day after reaching home at 4.45 pm the children ate 5 biscuits each at a stretch which indicates that the children were starving the whole day. The above contention is found not acceptable since the eating habits change in growing children and complainant did not give any such complaint to the authorities that his children were starving the whole day. However the complainant had given a letter to the Principal (in-charge) asking for the refund of the fees paid by him as evidenced by Ext. A4. The next allegation is that the staff denied permission to the complainant to see his kids and he was asked to get the permission of the Managing Director Shri K.J. Joseph to see the kids. The above allegation is denied by the opposite parties stating that the office of the M.D. Is at Kottayam and that the complainant was asked only to meet the teacher in charge of Babysit section. In the facts of the case, the above explanation of the opposite parties is found acceptable. However the staff of the school got an appointment to the complainant to meet the M.D. but the complainant did not avail the said opportunity as deposed by the complainant before this Forum. Another complaint raised by the complainant is that on two occasions his children were handed over in the evening with motion passed still in the trouser and on another occasion his son was wearing someoneelse's underwear. The above allegations were not controverted by the opposite party with necessary evidence. Thus we find that the hygience of the kids was compromised and that due care was not taken while changing the underwears of the kids. In the Ext. A1 brochure relating Baby care, Babysit, Play school K.G. and junior school, the opposite parties promised toilet training to kids in addition to the Montessori play way of teaching method. Thus we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We find the 1^st issue is in favour of the complainant.

7. Issue No. (ii) :

The complainant claimed refund of Rs. 46,000/- which was collected by the opposite parties towards registration fee and establishment fee from the complainant as evidenced by Ext. A3 receipts. But the complainant categorically deposed before this Forum that the said fees related only for the period during which his kids attended the Babysit Section and that after leaving the school no further amount paid to the opposite parties. Thus we find that the opposite parties are not liable to refund the fees of Rs. 46,000/- collected from the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the fees paid by him for the period during which his twin sons had attended the Babysit section. The issue No. (ii) is decided against the complainant.

8. Issue No. (iii) :

It is seen that the complainant has not claimed any compensation for the deficiency in service, but has claimed the refund of the fees paid and we find already in the foregoing paragraph that in the facts of the case, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the fees paid. The complainant sought admission to the opposite party school, lured by the advertisement given by them in Exts. A1 and A2 brochures. The opposite party school ought to have maintained the personal hygiene of the kids as promised in their brochures while handing over the kids to their employed parents in the evening. This was not done. We find that the complainant is unnecessary dragged before this Forum. Had the opposite party school taken due care in maintaining the hygiene of the complainant's kids this complaint would not have filed by the complainant. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of proceedings which we fix at Rs. 5000/-.

In the result, we partly allow the complaint and the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5000/- towards costs of proceedings to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of this Order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member. Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of despatch of the Order :

By Post/By Hand :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

Exhibit B1 :: School diary

Exhibit B2 :: Brochure