PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint of deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party by refusing to refund the tuition fee and refusing to cancel the admission of the daughter of the Complainant. The Complainant had paid Rs.35,000/- by cheque to Girton High School as a tuition fee of his daughter. The Opposite Party is the Chairman of the Managing Committee of Girton High School at N.Barucha Marg, Mumbai – 07. This tuition fee was meant for the academic year June, 2008 – May, 2009 and was paid by cheque dtd.31/12/2007.
2) The Complainant sates that he made an application dtd.14/01/08 to the Principal of Girton High School requesting to withdraw the admission of his daughter due to unavoidable circumstances. He has also requested the Principal to refund the fee which was paid by him in December, 2007. Again on 17/01/08 he wrote a reminder. On 21/01/08 he was called in the school and was asked to give the reason for withdrawal of the admission of his daughter from their school. On this the Complainant told the School authorities that he is planning to shift his residence. The school authorities asked him to produce the proof of shifting the residence till 31/05/08. However, the Complainant changed his plan to shift his residence. As the Complainant had already submitted his application for withdrawal of the admission of his daughter from Girton High School, his wife made alternative arrangements for their daughter’s admission in another school. On 02/02/2008 again the Complainant re-wrote to the Opposite Party’s school to refund the fee but invain.
3) The Complainant further stated that, he again and again called the school authority to refund the amount of fees as he had not availed any services of the school. However, the school refused to refund any amount.
4) The Complainant further stated that he had given the letter of withdrawal of admission, well in advance i.e. on 14/01/2008 before the start of academic year which commences in June, 2008. Therefore, the Complainant has requested that the issue of fees of Rs.35,000/- be settled and Rs.35,000/- with interest from 14/01/08 be refunded to him. A sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony be granted to him and the cost of complaint be provided.
5) The Complainant has attached the letter to the Principal of the Girton High School, receipt of Rs.35,000/- issued by Girton High School and other correspondence in support of his complaint. The complaint was admitted and the Opposite Party was served with the notice. She appeared through the Ld.Advocate and filed her written statement wherein she admitted that she is the Chairman of Managing Committee of Girton High School and the Complainant had sought admission for his daughter in Dec.07 for academic year starting from Jun, 2008.
6) The Opposite Party stated that the Complainant had filed the admission form for seeking the admission for his daughter in Girton High School and paid the necessary fees to the School. Therefore, the refund is to be sought from the school only. Opposite Party is not personally liable for admission. The Opposite Party has further submitted that the Complainant be dismissed for mis-joinder of a necessary party.
7) The Opposite Party further averred that the Complainant filled up the admission Form dtd.27/11/07 and the child of the Complainant was admitted to Nursery class on 12/12/2007 (Para 3). The parents were informed that annual fees in advance for admission were non refundable. This has been incorporated in the admission form. The Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant had applied on 14/01/08 for withdrawal of his daughter’s admission from the school due to unavoidable circumstances and he requested for refund of the fees. It is further stated that the Principal of the School granted an appointment to Complainant on 21/01/2008. Accordingly the Complainant met the Principal and the Opposite Party. He was asked the reason for withdrawal of the admission of his child. The Complainant on this; informed them that he was being sent to a different location by this office. At this time the Complainant was made aware of the fact that he had filled up the form wherein it was stated that the fees paid would not be refunded but as a special case, they would grant him full refund and he would have to submit written instruction from his office regarding his transfer. The Complainant on this, said that he would obtain such letter from his office. Accordingly, he was given time to get such letter till 30/05/08. In this respect a letter dtd.21/01/08 was issued to the Complainant informing him that the school has not at any time refused him to withdraw his daughter’s admission. Any proof of change of residence would be accepted and full refund would be given at any time till 30/05/08. However, the Complainant did not submit any letter to this effect. Vide letter dtd.02/02/08, the Complainant informed the principal of the school that he has changed his intention to change his place of residence. His wife had made alternative arrangements for their daughter. Thus, the Complainant did not produce any proof of change of the place of residence and obtained admission elsewhere (in another school). The Opposite Party further averred that the school was ready and willing to provide service as expected of it.
8) The Opposite Party further states that the case of the Complainant, is false, full of lies and contrary to morals and good conscience. It is also contrary to the settled law on the subject. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed with costs. The Opposite Party attached the xerox copies of the following documents alongwith her written statement –
a) Admission Form No.186 filled up by the Complainant and his wife dtd.27/11/2007.
b) Birth Certificate of Mithali.
c) Rationing Card of the Complainant.
d) Receipt of fees dtd.31/12/2008.
e) Letter dtd.14/01/2008 of the Complainant to the School.
f) Letter dtd.17/01/08 of the Complainant to the School.
g) Letter dtd.21/01/08 of the Principal of the School to the Complainant.
h) Letter dtd.02/02/08 of the Complainant to the Principal of the School.
i) Letter of Consumer Guidance Society of India to the Opposite Party dtd.04/03/2008.
j)Letter of the Opposite Party to Mr.R.B. Purohit dtd.07/03/2008.
k)Letter of Consumer Guidance Society of India to the Opposite Party dtd.18/03/2008.
l)Letter of the Opposite Party to R.B. Purohit dtd.24/03/2008.
m)Letter from Girton High School to Mr.R.B. Purohit dtd.10/07/2008.
9) The Opposite Party, by application sought the production of certain documents i.e. the application made to the school where the daughter of the Complainant has ben admitted, etc. The Complainant produce xerox copies of the documents such as, copy of application for admission, made to the other school and receipts of payment of fees made to the other school. Both parties submitted their written arguments wherein they reiterated the facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint and written statement respectively.
10) We heard the Complainant in person and the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party. We also perused the documents mentioned above and our findings are as follows –
Admittedly the Complainant had taken admission for his daughter in nursery standard in Girton High School, Mumbai. For this the Complainant alongwith his wife had filled up the admission form dtd.27/11/07 and had singed the same form. According to the receipt dtd.31/12/07 he had paid Rs.35,000/- to the School for the said admission. According to these two documents the admission of the Complainant’s daughter was confirmed in Girton High School. At the same time, simultaneously, he had also tried to seek admission for his daughter in other school also. As he got the admission in other school, he applied to the Girton High School to withdraw/cancel the admission and refund of the fees of Rs.35,000/- paid to the school.
The Opposite Party on the other hand, did not refuse to pay the fees but gave him a hearing and during the hearing when he put forth the excuse of changing his residence, school asked him for the proof of the change of his place of residence. The Complainant could not give any proof showing that he changed his place of residence and therefore, he wanted to cancel the admission of his daughter. He also could not be shifted to some other place. Therefore, on this ground the Opposite Party/School prolonged the refund of the fees. Indirectly they did not refund the fees to the Complainant.
11) Infact the admission form dtd.27/11/07 duly signed by the Complainant and his educated wife contains an important stipulation i.e. “Note: All fees charged at the time of admission will not be refunded. Please note that we are a private non aided minority school which subsists only on school fees. The school fees are revised periodically by the Government.” Inspite of this stipulation, Opposite Party did not state in her written statement or in any other documents attached to the complaint that the school will not refund the fees. The Opposite Party knowing fully well that the Complainant cannot produce the proof that he is going to change his residence or he cannot produce a letter from his employer stating to re allocate the Complainant elsewhere, she had put the condition to produce the proof for change of Complainant’s residence or any document showing that the Complainant is being shifted by his office to some other place than the present residential place.
12) From these facts it is seen that the Complainant voluntarily withdrew/cancelled the admission for his daughter from the Girton High School. Therefore, the question before this Forum is whether the voluntary withdrawal of admission by the Complainant himself will fetch him the refund of fees and whether non refunding of the fees under such circumstances would amount to deficiency in service ?
To answer these two questions, the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party relied on the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in Ramdevbaba Enginerings College V/s.Sushant Yuvraj Rode and anr. In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission was dealing with a case where provisional admission was given to the Complainant in 1st year and admission fee of Rs.8,800/- and security deposit of Rs.2,000/- was paid by the Complainant. Subsequently the Complainant secured admission in another college and sought refund of the above fees and security deposit paid by him. The Hon’ble National Commission held as follows –
“This is a case where there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the Revision Petitioner Engineering College. The Respondent Shri.Rode, withdrew from the college to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service. Non refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service. Admission fee is consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after admission. It is quid pro quo for such service. In that case the college was prepared to refund the security deposit of Rs.2,000/- but declined to refund the so called admission fees of Rs.8,800/- which the Hon’ble National Commission observed was not merely for admission but also for service which the college would be rendering to the students after admission in the matter of his studies. The Hon’ble National Commission has further clearly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the college when the student voluntarily left the college, after he got admission subsequently in another college.
13) In Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital V/s. Gunita Virk, the Hon’bel National Commission was inclined to accept the contention of the college that “Dues once paid were not refundable as per the terms and conditions of the prospectus as follows -
“We do not think it necessary to go into question whether the rule in prospectus, about the non-refund of fee is unconscionable or illegal. It is for the Civil/Court to determine this point.
14) In principal, Bharat ITC V/s. Muralidharan, the Kerala State Commission rejected the claim for refund of fees observing as follows -
“From the circumstances what we gather is that he got admission to the ITI course in Government ITI Kannur and therefore, he wanted to leave the Opposite Party Institution to join that Government course. Of course, he demanded refund of fee. Without entering a finding that there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, it will not be possible to make a direction to refund the amount. It is not on account of defect in the service of the Opposite Party that he left the institute but because he wanted to join the Government ITI course.
15) In the case in hand the Opposite Party No.1 and the Girton High School was redy to render their services. Infact they had admitted the child of the Complainant in nursery class. 2ndly the Complainant is a educated person who had signed the admission form wherein a conspicuous stipulation was laid down by the Opposite Party that “All fees charged at the time of admission will not be refunded.” We cannot go to the illegality or unconscionability of this stipulation. The Complainant voluntarily withdrew the admission. Therefore, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commissions and Fora mentioned above we find that there is no deficiency in the service on the part of Opposite Party and the Complainant being bound by the stipulation of the admission form he has no right to claim the refund of fees paid by him. Therefore, in our view this complaint is not maintainable and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the order -
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.196/2008 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
