CC No: 2674/2013

 Filed on 30.11.2013

Disposed on 11.05.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF MAY 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2674/2013

PRESENT:

Sri. H.S.Ramakrishna,  B.Sc., LL.B.

                                    PRESIDENT

                        Smt. L. Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                        MEMBER

                                                        V/S

ORDER

BY SRI H.S. RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.         This is a complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.19,800/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of deposit along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

2.         The brief facts of the Complaint can be stated as under:

In the complaint, the Complainant alleged that the Complainant admitted his son Master. Shanmukh Teja Kota to the Opposite Party School for nursery class on payment of Rs.52,800/- under different heads such as admission fee, activity fee, tuition fee, books fee, uniform fee etc.  The classes for the academic year 2013-14 started on 19.06.2013.  The normal school timings during the week days were 9.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.  The Complainant’s wife was taking her son on her vehicle and pickup her son from the school after school timings.  Since Complainant’s son was in tender age, the Complainant had not used the school bus facility available just to ensure his son can return back to home safely after the school hours.  On 24.06.2013 as usual Complainant’s wife had been to pick up her son from the school after the school hours.  All the children were brought outside by the staff of you the addressee to handover them to the parents except our son.  Then the Complainant’s wife realized that her son was missing from the group.  The employees of the school have not cross-checked or shown reasonable responsibility to check whether all the kids present at the dispatching lot until Complainant’s wife pointed out about the missing of their son.  Even the concerned teachers and maids were not aware about the whereabouts of the Complainant’s son.  When the Complainant’s wife panicked and complained to the concerned teachers and maids who used to handover her son daily after the school hours, but they did not give much importance to this issue.  They brushed aside the incident as if it’s common occurrence and then started to count the presence of all the children.  As wife of the Complainant became panic and requested many times to search for her child immediately at that moment the Complainant’s wife realized that something has gone wrong and tried to rush to enter inside the school premises since it is the responsibility to handover the students to the concerned parents in case the student after closing hour’s of the school.  When all the children and parents were going back to their home, the Complainant’s wife started crying and also threatened them with police complaint if they don’t act immediately to trace her child and stop all the outgoing vehicle from the campus of the school.  When other parents also started shouting against the school management, the concerned teachers and maids realized their mistake and gravity of the situation and started searching for the missing child.  After searching for about 30 minutes, the Complainant’s son was finally found crying for help in one of the school bus along with the driver as the child was frightened.  Since the Complainant had not taken the bus facility, it was the responsibility of the school to handover children safely to their parents after school hours.  Since the complainant’s son is just two years old and is not much capable of think on his own because of his small age, Institution acted carelessly and allowing the child to slip from the class room and board a bus even though the Complainant has not availed the bus facility for the child amounts to negligence and therefore amounts to deficiency in service.  The teacher has to handover the kids to the maids to take the kids to the prefixed place for the respective kids, maids has to handover to bus coordinator if kids parents are opted to take school transport facility if not they have to handover them to their parents.  As the Complainant has not opted the school transportation facility maids and teachers were supposed to handover the kid to his parents, but in the said incident it clearly shows that institution has failed to follow the above procedure with gross negligence or for the reason best known to them.  The Complainant came to know about the incident, he rushed to school all the way from his office by leaving all his important and committed responsibility at the office.  After great difficulty the Complainant’s wife along with some other parents and school staff traced the kid.  After realizing the carelessness of the staff and lack of safety measures followed by the respondent school management, the Complainant decided to cancel the school admission.  As the Complainant and his wife was very much upset and afraid about the safety to their kid in the hands of the Institution, they had taken admission for their child in different school on a payment of huge fee.  The Complainant paid admission fee of Rs.10,000/- on 08.12.2012 and further paid the stationery and books fee of Rs.1,800/- on 06.04.2013.  The Complainant did not use any books or stationery as the kid went to school only for 10 working days.  However did not refund any amount so far.  The Complainant has paid uniform fee of Rs.3,000/- on 06.04.2013 for two pairs of regular uniform, sports t-shirts and sweater.  On 22.06.2013 the school authority fails to provide sports t-shirts and sweater.  The Complainant did not use the uniforms as the incident happened on 24.06.2013.  Uniform were also of bad quality and does not suit the child.  The Complainant paid activity fee of Rs.5,000/- on 09.03.2013.  The Complainant’s kid went to school only for 10 working days and no activities took place and paid the tuition fee of Rs.33,000/- on 09.03.2013 of which the Opposite Party has refunded only Rs.30,400/- through cheque.  Hence, this complaint.

            3.         In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their common version.  In the version pleaded that complaint is false, frivolous, erroneous not maintainable both in law and on facts.  The Complainant is nothing to do with real reasons behind his decision to withdraw his ward from the school of the Opposite Parties.  The complaint design to malign the Opposite Parties unfairly and to extort money from them filed this complaint.  The Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the terms used in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The educational facility being provided by the Opposite Parties do not fall under the definition of service.  Even in general law, it is now well established that education in India is not a service.  The Complainant has no cause of action as against the Opposite Parties 2 & 3.  All amount paid by the Complainant were admittedly paid by him in favour of the 1^st Opposite Party only.  No amounts were ever demanded or received by the Opposite Parties 2 & 3.  The 2^nd Opposite Party was not a party to the contract between the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party.  There is no contractual or other relationship in law whatsoever between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 2 & 3.  The Complainant admitted his son to the nursery section of the 1^st Opposite Party upon payment of the prescribed tuition fees payable for the year 2013-14.  The Complainant had paid entire year’s fees at one go, instead of paying the fees term-wise, he was given a concession of Rs.2,000/- and was thus only required to pay Rs.38,000/-, instead of Rs.40,000/-.  In addition to the tuition fees payable for the year, there was also an one time admission fee payable by the Complainant of Rs.25,000/- along with a text book fee of Rs.1,800/- and uniform fee of Rs.3,000/-.  As a special concession, an admission fee of only Rs.10,000/- was collected from the Complainant as against the normal admission fee of Rs.25,000/-.  All these amounts were paid by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party only.  The Complainant has already collected all the relevant text books and uniforms for his child and as such, he cannot claim any refund with respect to the same.  The amounts paid towards those purchases have nothing to do with any services being rendered to the Complainant by the 1^st Opposite Party.  Nursery section of the 1^st Opposite Party consists of 23 students from various parts of Bangalore and in all there are about 684 students studying in the school.  The 1^st Opposite Party has a very organized and efficient transport system consisting of 13 buses that ply on fixed pre-announced routes, to drop a number of these students back to their respective homes after school hours.  The 1^st Opposite Party has a teacher, a co-teacher and a maid assigned to every classroom at the nursery level, in addition to an administrative incharge, a transport incharge, two administrative assistants, 13 bus drivers and 13 lady bus attendants who are all together in charge of the safety and well being of the 1^st Opposite Party’s students while in the school premises and while plying in school buses.  There were number of check-points set up internally by the Opposite Parties within the school premises, so as to ensure that every child is transported back via the correct assigned bus and if the parent of any child has opted for other means of transport, the Opposite Party has made arrangements to ensure that such students are gathered in a convenient, centralized location to wait for their respective parents.  This above mentioned system is four tiered i.e. with four different levels or check-points to ensure the absolute safety of the students of the 1^st Opposite Party.  This system has been in place ever since the institution of the 1^st Opposite Party and has been working flawlessly ever since and this system is at the very least commensurate with if not better than those adopted in any other school.  On 24.06.2013 the Complainant’s minor son was supposed to have been waiting for his mother at the designated pick-up point which is earmarked for parents who have opted to provide their wards with private means of transport.  It is submitted that as on that date, it had not even been one whole calendar week since the new academic year had started and therefore, the personnel of the 1^st Opposite Party were still acclimatized to the names and faces of all the new students as well as their individual transport needs and the tendencies of the individual children who had newly availed of admission in the school.  Since it had only been 3 working days since the start of the new academic year, the Complainant’s son was accidentally escorted along with the children who had opted for the 1^st Opposite Party school bus service, instead of being sent from the classroom to the designated pick-up point for parents who had opted for private modes of transport for their wards.  However, it must be noted that the 1^st Opposite Party bus driver upon receiving all the children into his bus, immediately realized that there was an extra child on the bus, as the total number of students who boarded the bus did not tally with his list.  The bus driver therefore did not leave the school premises and instead waited on the bus for the relevant bus coordinator to arrive with his checklist, so they could determine who exactly the extra child on board the bus was.  The bus driver did not at any time leave the children on the bus unattended, as that is contrary to the school’s instructions, therefore, since he was bound to stay on the bus, there was some minor delay before he could relay the information about the presence of an extra child to the concerned transport coordinator.  It is thus submitted that in the circumstances, absolutely there was no chance of the school bus leaving the school premises with the Complainant’s son on board, the bus would certainly have not left the campus without a final check to ensure that only the students meant to be on that particular bus had actually boarded it.  The Complainant’s child was thus never in any sort of danger or peril or exposed to any risk at all and he would most certainly have been safely returned to the designated location, even without any frantic efforts to locate him which efforts were initiated upon the Complainant’s wife adopting an agitated and confrontational stance the very instant she did not see her son at the designated pick-up spot without calmly trying to assess the situation.  Furthermore, as has been stated hereinabove, the said bus driver on whose bus the child was inadvertently boarded was at all relevant times aware that there was an extra child on board his bus, who was required to be off-loaded and he was merely awaiting the arrival of the relevant coordinator carrying the checklists to remedy the situation.  In the meantime, due to the furore and hue and cry created by the Complainant’s wife, including by instigating other parents, the staff designated to the pick-up spot were put into confusion and took them about 10-15 minutes in all to trace the child, as they also had to calm the Complainant’s wife and other parents at the same time, before they could reach out to the concerned class teachers and transport coordinators and resolve the situation.  The Complainant’s wife immediately upon noticing that her son was not in the group of students waiting for their parents began to panic and she created a huge scene and commotion.  On hearing of this, the senior school authorities immediately dispatched a number of teachers and maids to look for the child all over the campus and also promptly closed all the school gates and began checking all outgoing vehicles.  It is submitted that the child was located within barely 10-15 minutes of the commotion starting on the bus in question and immediately returned to the care of his mother.  There were several other students also on the bus which fact has been suppressed willfully in the complaint.  These facts thus show that even though there was a minor error on the part of the class teacher and maid assigned to the nursery section, the school’s rigorous sensitization of its staff, its well established safety protocols and procedures and its thorough training given to all of its staff members resulted in the child being secured at the immediate next check-point and immediately upon discovering that there was one child who was not where he was supposed to be, it was ensured that the bus did not leave the premises of the school until the situation was addressed.  Such levels of care and vigilance are unmatched in any school and the 1^st Opposite Party has set the highest standards in Bangalore City in ensuring students safety.  The Complainant deliberately glossed over the undisputed fact that the Complainant’s child was at all times within the school premises itself and under the direct care and watch of a school staff members and that he was never left unattended.  His absence from the waiting group of students who avail of private transport was only a small anomaly for which the 1^st Opposite Party had already taken pre-emptive measures to ensure that it would not lead to any larger or more serious situation.  The explained to the Complainant and his wife through numerous subsequent meetings and personal discussions and also via emails that the incident in question was a minor and unprecedented aberration in the school’s excellent safety practices and protocols concerning its students and that their child was actually never in any physical danger.  The 1^st Opposite Party also assured the Complainant and his wife that they had done everything possible to investigate the incident thoroughly to identify how and where the mix-up had happened and to ensure that something like this would not recur again.  The Complainant and his wife been blowing this entire incident out of proportion and they have been entirely unreasonable in their stance and completely uninterested in anything other than full refund of all the amounts paid by them.  The Complainant also hastily shifted his son to another school without even informing the 1^st Opposite Party office.  The Complainant infact already availed admission for his war in Navkis School for personal reasons even prior to the incident in question and that he has blown this minor incident out of proportion only with the malafide aim of obtaining a refund of amount that are not due to him under his contract with the school.  It is evident from the conduct of the Complainant and his wife and the speed with which admission was suddenly obtained in Navkis School that all along they had been planning to shift their son to another school in any event and they had probably even obtained such admission even before the incident of 24^th June.  Without any legal or contractual obligations to do so and only out of its magnanimity and on account of its intention to maintain good relations with the parent community informed the Complainant in clear terms, despite his totally unreasonable attitude and his obvious malafide intent that they were willing to refund a significant portion of the fees paid by him so as to close the dispute.  Accordingly, the Opposite Party has also handed over the amounts indicated by it to the Complainant, who has accepted the same without registering any protest.  This would amount in law to waiver of any other claims and the Complainant cannot be heard to make fresh demands at this stage.  The 1^st Opposite Party make it clear to all the parents of prospective student that none of the amounts paid by them to the school can be refunded to them under any circumstances and this condition of the contract is conveyed to all parents not only verbally at the time of seeking admission, but also in writing.  It is an express terms in the school’s terms and conditions which were stipulated on the application form itself.  This term was fully made known to the Complainant and his wife at the very outset, prior to receiving any amounts whatsoever from them.  They understood and accepted the school’s policy regarding refunds and only thereafter admitted their ward to the school.  When the Complainant unilaterally and without reason decided to withdraw his ward from the 1^st Opposite Party school, it was made clear to him that he would not be entitled to receive any amounts by way of compensation.  However, the given the fact that the Complainant was continuously harassing the school management and also spreading false rumors amongst the other parents with regard to the safety arrangements of the 1^st Opposite Party’s school.  The 1^st Opposite Party soon decided to refund a major portion of the amounts paid by the Complainant as and by way of full and final settlement of his claims with the objective of quickly putting the matter to rest amicably.  Only those amounts towards sale of goods availed by the Complainant and those associated with the direct losses occasioned to the 1^st Opposite Party as a result of the Complainant’s unilateral decision to withdraw his child have not been refunded.  The Complainant had paid in total an amount of Rs.52,800/- which was towards a one time admission fee of Rs.10,000/-, uniform fee of Rs.3,000/-, textbook fee of Rs.1,800/- and annual tuition fee of Rs.38,000/-.  The Complainant is not entitled to any circumstances to refund of the uniform fee and text book fee as he had already collected all the textbooks and sets of uniforms and his child had been using the same.  There was no defect or deficiency in the same as sought to be falsely alleged.  It is also submitted that one time admission fee of Rs.10,000/- is also not refundable.  The 1^st Opposite Party has however magnanimously and without any obligation whatsoever to do so already refunded an amount of Rs.30,400/- as and by way of a full and final settlement with the objective of buying peace and avoiding further harassment and slander at the hands of the Complainant and thus closing the chapter on their various invented grievances.  After having collected the refund offered to him by the 1^st Opposite Party as full and final settlement without registering any protest and with full knowledge that the same was being issued in full and final settlement and that further claims would not be entertained.  The Complainant has now with malafide intent after depositing and encashing the refund cheque made a claim for further amounts to which he is not at all entitled.  Therefore, estopped from making any claim for damages in the instant complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party and denied the averments made in the complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.         In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit by way of evidence.  For the Opposite Party one Mrs. Anuradha Prabhakar, authorized signatory of the Opposite Party has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard the arguments of both the parties.

5.         Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.         Our findings on the above points are:-

                        POINT (1):-  Negative

                        POINT (2):-  As per the final Order

REASONS

7.         POINT NO. 1:-         As looking into the averments of the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Party, it is not in dispute that the Complainant’s son Shanmukh Teja Kota was admitted to the nursery section of the 1^st Opposite Party by making total payment of Rs.52,800/- for the academic year of 2013-14.  It is also not in dispute that the Complainant’s son was not engaged the facility of school bus, on the other hand, the Complainant’s wife used to take her son on her vehicle and pick-up her son from the school after school timings.  It is also not in dispute that on 24.06.2013 as usual Complainant’s wife had been to pick-up her son from the school after the school hours.  All the children were brought outside by the staff of you the addressee to handover them to the parents except our son.  Further to substantiate this fact, the Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and in the sworn testimony he reiterated the same and also produced the receipts issued by the Opposite Party bearing receipt No.0422029 dt.23.02.2013 for Rs.10,000/- towards admission fee of his son, receipt No.0423233 dt.09.03.2013 for Rs.38,000/- towards tuition fee and other fees, receipt No.200168 dt.06.04.2013 for Rs.4,800/- towards uniform fee.  So from this evidence, it is very clear that the Complainant in total paid a sum of Rs.52,800/- to the 1^st Opposite Party.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged and there is no contra evidence to disbelieve this version.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that at the time of admission of his son Shanmukh Teja Kota, the Complainant has paid a sum ofRs.52,800/- to the 1^st Opposite Party.

            8.         The Complainant in his affidavit reiterated the same about the incident occurred on 24.06.2013.  Even this evidence of the Complainant also remains unchallenged.  To disbelieve the version of the Complainant, there was no contra evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that on 24.06.2013 when the Complainant’s wife to pick-up her son, her son was missing from the group and after making some search, it is found that her son was boarded one of the school bus.

            9.         Now the Complainant on the ground that the Opposite Parties have not taking proper care about the child of the Complainant and changed the school from the 1^st Opposite Party School to Navkis School and wants to claim the refund.  But the defence of the Opposite Party is that there was no deficiency on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party since the child of the Complainant was not missing and on the other hand, by mistake the child was boarded one of the school bus.  The bus driver after noticing the same i.e. excess of students boarded into the bus, he stopped his bus without leaving the school premises and thereby handed over the child to the Complainant’s wife.  In order to substantiate this fact also the Opposite Party in the affidavit evidence reiterated the same and this evidence of the Opposite Party also remains unchallenged and to disbelieve this evidence, nothing on record.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the defence of the Opposite Party that the child of the Complainant was not missing and on the other hand, due to confusion the child himself boarded one of the school bus.  As soon as the Complainant’s wife intimated the same and after thorough check, the school authorities are able to trace the child of the Complainant and handed over to the Complainant’s wife.  But only with an intention to get back the refund of the amount, the Complainant has filed this complaint.  In order to substantiate this defence, the Opposite Party in his sworn testimony reiterated the same.  On the other hand, except the interested version of the Opposite Party, they have not furnished any supporting evidence.  On the other hand, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 served interrogatories on the Complainant that is as hereunder;

            (i)       Where does your son currently study?

            (ii)      When did you apply for the prospectus of his current school?

            (iii)     When did you apply for admission to his current school?

            (iv)     When was your son granted admission into his current school?

(v)      When did you make the first payment towards your son’s admission in his current school?

(vi)     Do you have any documentary evidence to establish the veracity of your answers to questions 1 – 5?

(vii)    If question No.6 is answered in the positive, can you produce the same before this Hon'ble Forum?

For those interrogatories the Complainant answered in a proper manner and particularly Question No.4 : When was your son granted admission into his current school? and for that the Complainant answered as ;

“ Complainant’s son attended for the interaction/interview session at Kinder Kare Academy for the admission on 5^th December 2012 at 1.10 p.m.  Seat/Admission Confirmation was also done by Kinder Kare Academy on the same day immediately after the interaction/interview session which was on 5^th December 2012.  Though the admission has been confirmed at Kinder Kare Academy, still Complainant has decided to join his son at Orchids, so made the first payment of admission fee an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 8^th December 2012.  As Complainant has never has any second thought, he paid the entire fee on 9^th March 2013 to Orchids though they had the options of paying the fee in 4 installments such as April 2013, June 2013, September 2013 and December 2013, if there was any second though on the school, the Complainant would have just paid only the required installment at that point of time instead of paying the full amount.  It shows Complainant trust on the school at that point of time.” 

To substantiate this, the Complainant also produced the receipts issued by the 1^st Opposite Party Kinder Kare Academy which clearly discloses that Complainant admitted his son Shanmuk Teja Kota in the Kinder Kare Academy on 08.04.2014 i.e. after this incident.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the defence taken by the Opposite Party that only to get refund of the amount, the Complainant filed this false complaint.  However, as looking into the evidence placed by the parties, the Complainant has not established that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

            10.      It is the further defence of the Opposite Party that the 1^st Opposite Party make it clear to all the parent of the prospective students that none of the amount paid by them to the school can be refunded to them under any circumstances and this condition of the contract is conveyed to all the parents not only verbally at the time of seeking admission, but also in writing.  The Opposite Party further contented that the Complainant had paid total amount of Rs.52,800/- which is towards one time admission fee of Rs.10,000/-, uniform fees of Rs.3,000/-, textbook fee of Rs.1,800/-, tuition fee of Rs.38,000/- and the Complainant is not entitled in any circumstances to refund the uniform fee and textbook fee as he already collected all the textbooks and set of uniforms and one time admission fee of Rs.10,000/-.  To substantiate this fact, Mrs. Anuradha Prabhakar, authorized signatory of the Opposite Party filed affidavit and in the sworn testimony reiterated the same and also produced the application form of Shanmukh Teja Kota.  As looking into this application form, in this form both the parents of Shanmukh Teja Kota put their signature i.e. Complainant Dr. Kishore Babu Kota and his wife Smt. Seetha Sireesha.  In this application form it is clearly mentioned that fee once paid cannot be refunded.  Inspite of this, the 1^st Opposite Party after deducting admission fee of Rs.10,000/-, uniform fee of Rs.3,000/-, textbook fee of Rs.1,800/- since these amounts cannot be refundable in view that the Complainant has received the uniform and text book, out of Rs.38,000/- the 1^st Opposite Party refunded Rs.30,400/- to the Complainant i.e. after deducting Rs.9,000/- first installment fee.  This is further supported by the document produced by the Complainant themselves that cheque issued by the 1^st Opposite Party in the name of the Complainant bearing cheque No.304793 dt.20.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.30,400/-.  Therefore, from this evidence it is very clear that as per the demand of the Complainant for refund of the amount on the ground that they are not interested to continue his son in the 1^st Opposite Party school, the 1^st Opposite Party refunded Rs.30,400/- out of Rs.52,800/- by deducting admissible amount of admission fee of Rs.10,000/-, uniform fee of Rs.3,000/-, textbook fee of Rs.1,800/-, thereby there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties since the Opposite Parties as per the demand made by the Complainant refunded the admissible amount.

            11.      The learned counsel for the Complainant argued that since the Complainant has not interested to continue his child in 1^st Opposite Party on the ground that 1^st Opposite Party school are not taking proper care about his son particularly his son is aged about 2 years 8 months who is a tender age, thereby the Complainant shifted his son from 1^st Opposite Party School to some other school and demanded for refund of the fee paid by him i.e. Rs.52,800/- on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party.  Since the non-attending of the child in proper manner amounts to deficiency in service, thereby the Complainant is entitled for refund of the entire amount of Rs.52,800/-.  In support of his argument, he relied upon a decision reported in   I (2007) CPJ 115, I (1992) CPJ 105, an unreported decision of Baanyan Tree School v/s Parneet Kaur in Appeal No.31/2012, II (2000) CPJ 102 and (2009) 4 SCC 484.  By carefully looked into the abovesaid decisions, the law laid down in the said decisions are not application to the facts of the present case.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Complainant that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties since the child of the Complainant was not missing and on the other hand, due to mistake, the boy himself boarded one of the school bus and as soon as the wife of the Complainant reported the same to the school authorities, the school authorities trace the Complainant’s son and handed over him to the wife of the Complainant and even after demand for refund of the amount, the 1^st Opposite Party after deducting admissible fees i.e. admission fee of Rs.10,000/-, uniform fee of Rs.3,000/-, textbook fee of Rs.1,800/-, refunded a sum of Rs.30,400/-.  Thereby there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, the Complainant fails to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this point is held in the negative.

12.      POINT NO.2:-          In view of the finding on Point No.1, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 11^th day of May 2016).

       MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

CC. NO.2674/2013

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witnesses not examined, but affidavit of the witnesses is filed, as follows;

1. Dr. Kshore Babu Kota has filed his affidavit for Complainant.
2. Mrs. Anuradha Prabhakar, Authorized Signatory has filed his affidavit for the Opposite Party.

List of documents filed by the Complainant :

1. Copy of the brochure of school.
2. Copy of the complaint about child missing dt.25.06.2013.
3. Copies of the school fee receipts.
4. Copy of the email correspondences.
5. Copy of the legal notice dt.17.9.2013.
6. Copy of the postal receipts and acknowledgement.
7. Reply notice dt.07.10.2013.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties :

1.      Copy of the application form.

2.      Copy of the email dt.11.07.2013 sent by the Complainant.

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT