Date of filing :-12/01/2015.

Date of Order:-15/09/2015.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 03 of 2015

Mrs. Puhpanjali Mishra, Mr. Subhash Mishra, Forest Colony, Q-NO.R3, Raigarh road Dharamjagarh, Pin-496116, Chhattishgarh.

                                                                                                                                                                            ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

                                                                                  -V e r s u s -

Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Director, Vikash Educational Institution (Residential School), Barhaguda, Bargarh, Odisha

Mr. D.Murlikrishnan Chairman, Vikash Educational Insutitution (Residential School), Barhaguda, Bargarh, Odisha.

                                                                                                                                                                                .... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant:- Himself.

For the Opposite Parties :- Sri B.K Mahapatra, Advocate.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Member (w), I/C President.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt. 15/09/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member(w), I/C President .

Facts if the Complaint :-

Complainant namely Smt. Puspanjali Mishra, filed complaint against the OP(s) from Vikash Educational School in the capacity of Director and Chairman alleging deficiency in service and harassment and prayed suitable compensation.

Complainants son was to take admission at the OP organization that is Vikash Educational Institutions for which they had been to Bargarh on Dt.03/06/2015 and applied for admission as per prospectus and deposited an amount of Rs 81,500/-(Rupees eighty one thousand five hundred)only for the admission as Ist Installment. At the time of such admission application all documents were not filed before the Opposite Party School authorities, but it was conveyed to the Complainant to secure a seat all the fees to be deposited and when Complainant deposited the required fees their son has been allotted an admission number vide 3491969 for the session 2013-2014 and it was said that this admission is provisional till finaly other documents are submitted.

Subsequently Complainant and their son decided not to take admission in the Opposite Party institution for which they communicated their decision vide Telephone Call on Dt.11/06/2013 to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and requested refund of deposited amount with them at that time Opposite Party No.1(one) was ready to return the amount. As per the advice of Opposite Party No.1(one), Complainant filed written application for refund of fees on Dt.23/06/2013 and it was said to them that in the management committee meeting their application will be placed for decision as per their system. But Complainant got no communication till Dt.04/07/2013 about their petition.

On Dt.05/07/2013 and Dt.06/07/2013 Complainant talked to Opposite Party No.1(one) via telephone who invited them to this School on Dt.08/07/2013 but no step was taken , rather Complainant got badly treated at their premises on that day.

Again complainant's husband on Dt.03/08/2013 sent a registered letter demanding the refund but nothing heard back from the authorities for the issue Complainant and her family members had to visit to Bargarh several times for redressal and faced physical as well as monetary loses in the process.

Complainant prays all the amount deposited with the OP(s) with an interest of 18%(eighteen percent) per annum for mental harassment Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only and for physical harassment Rs.10,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only and a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as litigation cost.

Complainant files the following documents and relies on then to substantiate her cause.

1. Copy of receipt of payment amounting Rs.76,000/-(Rupees seventy six thousand)only and Rs.5,500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred)only.

2. Copy of the receipt of list of documents deposited during provisional admission.

3. Copy of cancellation letter of the provisional admission Written by husband of the Complainant. (two numbers) Dt.21/06/2013 and Dt.05/08/2013.

4. Copy of pleaders Notice Dt.17/04/2014.

5. Reply to the pleaders Notice by Vikash Educational Institution on Dt.03/05/2014.

6. Authorization letter so as to represent their case in the Forum in the name of Ashutosh Mishra Dt.10/01/2015.

    

Complaint passed the initial scrutiny and allowed for adjudication Opposite Party being noticed as per the provisions appeared on Dt.08/02/2015 and filed their written version on Dt.25/03/2015 denying the allegations levelled against them and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

Opposite Parties have filed the following documents and relied on them to substantiate their contention.

1. Money receipt copy towards purchase of application form No.619 receipt No.78 Dt. 03/06/2013.

2. Application form cum guideline.

3. Written undertaking by Subash Mishra to furnish original documents which were not submitted.

4. Partial admission fee details Dt.03/06/2013.

5. Reply of advocate notice Dt.17/04/2014 by their advocate on Dt.03/05/2014.

6. Admission fee details Dt.03/06/2013.

Hearing was conducted on Dt.22/06/2015 in the presence of parties who submitted their respective problems in great details referring the documents filed.

Heard the Parties and on perusing and careful consideration of the documents filed with the case record including the petitions and citations filed by parties following points are found important for consideration.

1. Copy receipt filed by the Complainant is the most important document relied which is a computer generated copy and approves the amount Rs.81,500.00/-(Rupees eighty one thousand five hundred)only being paid to Vikash Educational Institutions on Dt.03/06/2013.

2. Two letters were filed though whether delivered is not known, speak about request for cancellation of the admission and refund of the money paid.

3. Complainant alleges that their son was provisionally admitted to the school which can be finalized only after performance of some action which is filing of some original documents which were not filed on the day of filing the application of admission and fees. The money receipt speaks about remittance of fees but does not answer whether provisional admission or not.

   Documents filed by Opposite Party about Ist installment of fees also shows same amount.

4. The document declaration to file other documents like original SLC, Conduct, Character Certificate, Migration Certificate, Progress Reports and Mark sheets of Class-X, registration card of Class-VIII to X and IX to X were not submitted on the date of filing of admission form and fees on Dt.03/06/2013 and shows that they will be submitted latest by 23^rd June and filing which the application of admission may be cancelled.

5. Complainant sent a pleaders notice requesting refund of the fees paid and Opposite Parties replied the some via their counsel on Dt.03/05/2014. The pages No.3(three) and No. 4(four) of this reply to the Pleader Notice are missing so what is there remains unascertained.

6. Opposite Parties on hearing and version admitted the receipt of amount said by the Complainant as Ist installment of the admission and Opposite Parties refers to the Clause -II of the prospectus which says.

   Clause II

   “ The Student shall be deemed to be in rolls officially till a withdrawal application to the Principal is submitted by the parent. My claim of re paid to the school will not be entertained. Please note that tution coaching fee once paid will not be refunded”.

   The request for cancellation of admission was made by the Parent/ Complainant on Dt.21/06/2013 before the last date for filing of other documents for admission i.e. 23^rd June so on the circumstances why admission was not cancelled were not answered by the Opposite Parties.

   Regarding the clause-II of the prospectus it can be said that it is a rule book made by the institution which certainly suits them and the condition it self is improper, unfair and unjust because any amount can not be waved through playing tricks forming rules and when a rule their about cancellation is there and followed by the Parent/Complainant.

7. Purchase of prospectus and application for admission is proved by the document money receipt amounting Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred)only on Dt.03/06/2015. Also the fact of name of the student intending admission Complainant purchasing application for admission form are proved through documents.

8. Clause-I of the prospectus says only after submission of all required certificates admission is possible so under the circumstances of the case it is understood that no admission has taken place and the management of the School can not forefeit the entire fees deposited in the pretense of any self made rules in the prospectus suiting them only and against principles of Natural Justice.

9. Complainant in their written Argument speaks about request for cancellation via Rediffmail service but no document to ascertain the contention is provided.

10. Complainant files citation Fiitzee vrs Dr. Minathi Rath of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Revision Petition No. 3356 of 2006, 3496 of 2006 and 3499 of 2006 wherein it was held that if a student leaves an educational institution half way he/she can claim the fees for the term he/she not attending the institution on for the period of non attendance of the course. Though the citation is a little bit off beat but deals and confirms that if a student have not attended a course he/she will not pay the course fee for the period. If fees were paid in advance the remaining fees to be refunded from the leaving date till the end of course period. In this case the student have not even attended single claim on the other hand parents of the students requested for cancellation of their admission application and in due time. In Registar, Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University Vrs M/s Prem Deepkaur, FA 569/2005, State Commission , Delhi have decided that “The terms- “fees once paid is not refundable” is unconscionable as well as voidable and not actionable.

11. In their written argument OP(s) refers to certain citation favouring then contention vide.

    2010-(ii) SCC Page 159.

    SCP (Civil) 225 32/2012.

    2014 (ii) ICC 940.

    but does not files the judgment to ascertain them and contends that educational institution do not come under the terms providers of service hence do not come under Consumer Protection Act-1986.

    Section-2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 defines service as “service” means service of any description which is made to potential ( users and includes but not limited to the provision of ) facilities connection with Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, Processing, Supply of electrical or other energy, Board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement on the purveying of news or other information but does not includes the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

    However it is settled law that providing education for charges comes under the purview of services explained as above and forum feels that OP(s) only referred a few decision fevouring their contentions.

12. Complainant alleges harassment and monetary losses in the process of recovering the fees.

    Forum founds that it is a part and parcel of the system while admission process is initiated and parents and students have to bear it as a part of their choice of place they have to travel and incum other incidental xpenses hence can not allege harassment or monetary losses on that account. So far as verbal misbehaviors and harassment is concerned no prove could be done from the side of the Complainant.

     

    Under the facts and circumstances OP(s) have committed gross error in not cancelling the admission as per their own set of rules, as well as even after request for cancellation and improper, illegal and unfair, hence liable for deficiency of service hence Forum orders as follows:-

    - O R D E R -

Opposite Parties are directed, to refund the fees to the Complainant accepted in advance on Dt.03/06/2013 amounting to Rs.81,500/-(Rupees eighty one thousand five hundred)only along with 6%(six percent) interest per annum from the date of received of money i.e. Dt.06/06/2013 to date of Order i.e. 15/09/2015 and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as litigation cost within thirty days from the date of Order, failing which total awarded amount shall carry interest 12% (twelve percent) per annum till date of actual realization of amount.

Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

               I agree,                                                                              

     (Smt.Anjali Behera)

       M e m b e r(w),

       I/C President.

( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash )

              M e m b e r