Delhi

StateCommission

A/785/2014

RAMAKRISHNA SR. SEC. SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS. SUSHMA BUDHIRAJA - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 04.05.2017

First Appeal No. 785/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 02.07.2014 passed in complaint case No. 293/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Janakpuri New Delhi-110058)

In the matter of:

Ramakrishna Sr. Sec. School

M-Block, Vikaspuri

New Delhi-110018

(Through its Principal Mrs. MamtaAggarwal)                   ..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. SushmaBudhiraja

O-162, Geeta Enclave

VaniVihar, Uttam Nagar

New Delhi                                                                .........Respondent

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                              Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                    Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

1.     Present appeal is preferred under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short Act) against the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum III Janakpuri in Compaint Case No. 293/2013 whereby the Ld. District Forum has directed the appellant/OP to refund the amount paid by respondent/complainant after deducting from the admission charges, tuition fees for one month. The Ld. District Forum has also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for inconvenience, mental agony and hardship suffered.
2.     Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant got her two children son Mayank and daughter Aisha admitted in the appellant/OP school in L.K.G, and third standard respectively. She deposited an amount of Rs. 18,000/- for the admission of her son and Rs. 11,000/- for the admission of her daughter on 19.02.2013. For which no receipt was issued to her. It was alleged by the respondent/complainant that on the next month she was called and askedto pay for books and school uniform for which she paid in cash. The contention of the respondent/complainant was that though she paid Rs. 29,000/- on 19.02.2013 for which she was issued two receipts for the sum of Rs. 7,880/- and Rs. 7,550/-only. It was alleged by the respondent/complainant that inspite of repeated demands receipts of the balance amount was not issued. Her children were started going to school from 01.04.2013 and after three days of attending the school her son was beaten by some boys for which she met the class teacher. Again after two days her son beaten and threatened not to lodged any complaint with the class teacher otherwise he would be beaten again. Her son did not disclose this fact but refused to go to the school. She went to the school contacted the receptionist and wanted to meet the Principal but she was not allowed. Thereafter one day her son made a complaint that the boys had snatched Rs. 10/- from him. Then she wrote note on his school diary. Again on 20.04.2013 she went to the school to meet the Principal but she was given appointment after five days. When she met the Principal she misbehaved with her and asked her even to withdraw her daughter from the school. Hence she asked for refund of the fees, she was told that nothing would be refunded as they had to install a lift in the school for the welfare of the children which will be costing of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lakhs Only). Respondent/complainant feeling aggrieved and filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
3.     On notice appellant/OP appeared and filed its written reply wherein it was admitted that the respondent/complainant got her son and daughter admitted in class third and L.K.G. respectively on 09.02.2013. It was stated by theappellant/OP that the respondent/complainant paid quarterly fees of Rs. 9,005/- from April to June 2013 including activity chargesfor her son and Rs. 8,075/- including activity charges forher daughter Aisha. It is also stated that both children remained on the rollsof the school till 04.05.2013 on which date respondent/complainant asked for withdrawal of her children and refund of fees. Thereafter refund chequein the sum ofRs. 4,555/- out of Rs. 9,005/- was issued in her favour on 24.05.2013 after deducting two months tuition fee, admission charges for one month for the services availed by her son. Similarly in the cheque of Rs. 4,025/- out of total of Rs. 8,075/- was issued. Admission charges for one month for the services availed by her daughter. It was further stated that she was asked to collect the cheques personally but she did not do so, hence the cheques were sent by post. It is further stated that respondent’s/complainant’s husband purchased the books and uniform from market and deny all the averments made in the complaint.
4.     Both the parties have led their evidences and filed their written arguments. After considering the evidence filed by both the parties the Ld. District Forum observed that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP, and directed the appellant/OP to refund the money paid by the respondent/complainant by deducting one month’sadmission charges and tuition fees for her children within thirty days alongwith the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the inconvenience, hardship and metal torture caused to the respondent/complainant.
5.     Aggrieved of the aforesaid order appellant/OP has filed the present appeal.
6.     We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record ourselves.
7.     Contention of the appellant/OP is that the District Forum while passing the impugned order ignored the principle of natural justice as it has not discussed the version of the appellant/OP and has considered only the version of the respondent/complainant without production of any supporting documents of evidence particular for the alleged payment of Rs. 25,000/- without taking any receipt. Further contention is that the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- i.e. on a higher side.
8.     We have carefully perused all the documents placed on record. The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that she paid Rs. 18,000/- in cash for the admission of her son and Rs. 11,000/- for the admission of her daughter on 09.02.2013 for which appellant/OP has not issued any receipt. The receipt was issued to her for the part amount in March 2013 and while asking the receipt for the total amount paid she was told that receipt will be issued later on. The allegation of the appellant/OP is that the respondent/complainant did not visit the school at all on the said date, instead she visited the school on 09.01.2013 and 10.01.2013 for registration of her children for admission in the school. The receipt of the payment of Rs. 29,000/- to the appellant school is also challenged by the appellant/OP.
9.     It is an admitted fact that the respondent/complainant has visited the appellant’s school for admission, of her son and daughter on 09.02.2013. The sole question for consideration of the appeal, is that whether the respondent/complainant is to be believed, who has no receipt of payment of Rs. 29,000/- in cash or the appellant/OP is to be believed. A careful perusal of the documents itself proves the version of the respondent/complainant that she took admission of her children on 09.02.2013 and paid the fees on that date. But the receipts were issued on 18.03.2013 for MayankBudhiraja and on 19.03.2013 for Ayesha Budhiraja. If both the children were admitted on the same day and the fees paid on 09.02.2013 as admitted by the appellant/OP in their written statement filed before the District Forum than why no receipt was issued on 09.02.2013 at the time of receiving the money in cash. Receiving money on 09.02.2013 and issuing receipt on 19.02.2013 for the admission of the daughter shows that accounts were manipulated by the school authorities for the purpose of issuing receipt and grabbing the balance cash payment. It is admitted by the appellant/OP that only one time payment was made by the complainant then why two receipts were issued in the name of AyeshBudhiraja one is dated 19.02.2013 which is the sum of Rs. 7,550/- and the second receipt was issued on 19.04.2013 for the sum of Rs. 525/- which is taken on account of activity charges. All the receipts show a clear manipulation of accounts.
10.         Grievance of the respondent/complainant was that her son attended the school only for three days and he was beaten by some students for that he lodged a complaint with class teacher. Despite that her son was tortured again and again in the school, regarding this she made a note in the school diary of her son and wanted to discuss the issue with the principal but she was not allowed to access the principal. A photocopy of her request letter dated 14.04.2013 and 16.04.2013 was filed before the District Forum. The grievance of the respondent/complainant is that when she met the principal she was asked even to withdraw her daughter from the school who was attending the school till then. Hence both children stopped attending the school in the month of April. Thereafter on 04.05.2013 respondent/complainant wrote a letter for issuance of transfer certificate of her children. This shows the bonafide of the respondent/complainant as no parent would withdraw the children from the school in midsession unless there are compelling circumstances. As we know that now a days it is not an easy job to get admission in any other school in the middle of the session but the respondent/complainant was compelled to do so. Whatever was done by her was under compulsion of the circumstances. If principle of the school would not have issued the transfer certificate of her children they might have lost one year. In our view conduct of the appellant is unjustified. Hence we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the respondent/complainant that she paid Rs. 29,000/- in cash for admission of her children for which no proper receipt was issued to her.
11.         In view of the above discussion, we are in agreement with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum and do not want to interfere with the same as far as the objection of appellant about the compensation, keeping in view the harassment of the complainant it is not on the higher side. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
12. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be sent to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(SALMA NOOR)​

MEMBER