Date of Filing:15.12.2008 Date of Order:04.02.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2706 OF 2008 Smt. Swathi Bakshi, W/o Rajesh Bakshi, R/at No.47/1, 1st Floor, 13th Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. Complainant V/S M/s Kara Learning Private Limited, No.374, 12th Cross, HIG Dollars Colony, RMV 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 094. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant admitted her child to the opposite party play home. She has paid an amount of Rs.65,750/- for the entire academic year. At the time of admission the complainant had informed the opposite party that her husband being on a transferable job, situation may arise wherein the family would have to shift, as a consequence of which her child would be withdrawn from the school, even before the academic year commenced, and the opposite party had agreed to refund the entire sum if the child were to be withdrawn within 15 days of the commencement of the school. The complainant submits that her husband having been transferred to New Delhi, on 28th June-2007, accordingly the husband of the complainant had sent a notice by an e-mail to opposite party on 29th June-2007. The schools have been commenced on 14th June-2007. Complainant having discussion with the opposite party staff they have informed that complainant has to pay 1 ½ months fee and balance may be refunded. Complainant compelled to write several reminders. Opposite party replied that money would be refunded once an alternative student was found for the seat that had been vacated by her child. Complainant was constrained to write a letter by register post. Opposite party refused to make repayment. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 65,750/- and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Notice returned with an endorsement as not claimed. When the case was listed for appearance of the opposite party on 22/01/2009, the opposite party was called out. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The returned registered notice sent by the Forum with an endorsement of not claimed was considered as a sufficient service of notice since opposite party has not appeared and defense version was also not sent by post. Therefore, opposite party was placed exparte. 3. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard. 4. I have gone through the complaint, documents and the affidavit. The complainant has produced a receipt dated 4th June-2007 which is for Rs.10,000/-. Another receipt has been produced by the complainant dated 29/06/2007. This is for Rs. 55,750/-. Thus in all complainant has paid Rs.67,750/- to the institution. It is the case of the complainant that she had informed the opposite party at the time of admission, her husbands job is a transferable job and situation may arise wherein the family would have to shift, as a consequence of which, the admission of the child would be withdrawn and for that the opposite party institution agreed to refund the entire fee amount if the child were to be withdrawn. The complainant submitted that her husband having been transferred to New Delhi on 28th June-2007 and accordingly matter was informed to the opposite party and the complainant demanded for refund of the amount. There was some correspondence between the parties and serving legal notice etc.,. Opposite party has not taken steps to refund the amount even after several requests and correspondence. Therefore, the complainant was force to approach this Forum for getting justice. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter even though notice sent through registered post. It appears that the opposite party has no defense to make thats why the opposite party has chosen to remain absent. The condition that fee once paid is non-refundable is not binding on the complainant, that mindset on the part of the service provider requires to be changed. The service provider cannot take disadvantage of the situation and they shall not be allowed to make illegal gain out of the compulsions of the consumers or parents. The case put up by the complainant has to be accepted as true and correct. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers. The complainant in this case definitely comes under the definition of consumer. The Consumer Protection Act is a milestone in the history of socio economic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit. Therefore, the opposite party shall be directed to refund the fee collected from the complainant since the child of the complainant has not studied in the opposite partys school and admission has been withdrawn within 10days from the date of commencement of the academic year. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.65,750/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the opposite party is liable to pay interest at 12% p.a on the above amount from the date of this order till payment/realisation. 6. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
