Date of Filing : 15.04.2011
Date of Order : 30.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 30th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., B.L., …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 743/2011
Kum.N.M.Janhavi,
Aged about 4 years,
D/o.N.S.Mahendra Babu,
Residing at No.1426, Ashirwad,
14th Main, 17th Cross,
1st Stage, Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bangalore 560 073.
Rep. by her father,
N.S.Mahendra Babu,
Natural guardian.
(By Advocate Sri.Ravi & Ravi) ……. Complainant
V/s.
M/s Neethi Montessori School,
No.162, R.J.Nagar,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bangalore.
Rep. by its School Head Master.
(By Advocate B & S Associates) ….Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that led to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to to pay Rs.50000/- and refund of the amount are necessary:
1. The father of the complainant paid Rs.7000/- to the OP on 11.03.2010 for admission of the complainant to Montessori (Nursery) without verifying the infrastructure, she was admitted. The complainant completed her 1st year Montessori . The OP prevailed for re-admission to the 2nd year. The complainant stated that there is insufficiency, infrastructure. Hence she was admitted to BNM School, Banashankari. This was informed to the OP and sought refund through letter dated 26.03.2010 and 31.05.2010 and 25.06.2010 . The clause of non refund is against section of the contract act.
2. The brief version of the OP are:
The complainant was admitted for the academic year 2009-10 and she completed the education. Father of the complainant visited the school, gave the opinion that he having noticed improvement shown by the complainant and said keep good work and he got re-admitted the complainant for 2010-11 and paid 7000/- on 15.04.2010. According to the terms it is non refundable. The father of the complainant shifted her to other school hence the amount could not be refunded.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit. The OP did not turn up all, hence the complainant is heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
B) What order?
5. Our answers to A & B are as per the detailed order for the following.
REASONS
6. Readings the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits of complainant and documents it is an admitted fact that the complainant was admitted to Montessori of the OP for the academic year 2009 -10 and she completed one year in the school. Hence the father of the complainant has written “we are happy with the improvement shown by our daughter keep the good work” and got re-admitted for the academic year 2010-11 paid admission fee of Rs.7000/- but got the child shifted to another school later of his choice and sought refund of the money.
7. For the academic year 2010-11 the complainant had not attended any class. Except receiving the money the OP did not do anything. This is Montessori and the question of keeping one seat vacant does not arise. There is no such allegation. Hence under these circumstances the complainant got admitted and paid the money and the OP has spent some amount towards miscellaneous expenditure. If we deduct 20% of the amount paid and order rest to be paid to the complainant we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points and pass the following.
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5600/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which it shall pay with interest at 12% per annum from 15.04.2010 until payment.
3. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
4. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
