Complaint presented on : 13.01.2015
Order pronounced on : 31.03.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
THURSDAY THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2016
C.C.NO.14/2015
Mr.K.Muthukumar,
S/O N.Kesavan,
No.6, New Street, M.M.Colony,
Amainthakarai,
Chennai – 600 029.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
M/S. Future World Gifted School,
Rep. by its Proprietrix,
Ms.R.Monitha,
Old No.10, New No.23,
Central Street, Kilpauk Garden Colony,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
Date of complaint : 14.01.2015
Counsel for Complainant :M/S. R.Ganesan
Counsel for Opposite party :M/S. M.L.Ramesh
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Opposite Party is running a school by name and style of ‘M/S. Future World Gifted School’ in the aforementioned address, which is specially meant for Special Children suffering from Autism. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party’s school on 09.07.2014 for getting admission for his 3 year old son Master Dhanvanth, who is suffering from learning and occupational disability. The Complainant had admitted his son in the Opposite Party’s school on 10.07.2014 on payment of a fee of Rs.14,500/- for one year. In addition to the above fee, the Opposite Party has also demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards occupational therapy for one year. The Complainant states that he has totally paid a sum of Rs.19,500/- to the Opposite Party on 10.07.2014, for which the Opposite Party had issued a receipt for Rs.14,500/- only. The Complainant sent the child to the Opposite Party’s school from 11.07.2014 onwards. The Opposite Party’s Staff and the so-called trained house-keeping executives could not keep the Complainant’s son in good and hygiene condition. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party’s staff did not even bother to change the diapers of his son and he was made to sit the whole day with wet diapers. The Opposite Party had not offered efficacious training to the Complainant’s son and the Opposite Party’s organization never taken any care about the Complainant son’s activities and health. The Complainant got dissatisfied and except to discontinue his son from sending to the school from 30.07.2014 onwards. As he discontinued to send his son to the school, he has requested the Opposite Party to refund the fee amount of Rs.19,500/- paid by him. However, the Complainant states that the Opposite Party returned a sum of Rs.8,000/- only and refused to repay the balance sum of Rs.11,500/- by stating that it was adjusted towards books and uniforms. The Complainant caused a legal notice on 24.11.2014 to the Opposite Party herein and duly received by her but so far there is no any fruitful reply till date. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to pay the balance sum of Rs.11,500/- with compensation for Deficiency in Service and for mental agony and also cost of the proceedings.
2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BREIEF:
On 09.07.2014 when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for getting admission to his son who is suffering from learning and occupation disability, this Opposite Party had assured that it is a trusted autism school in Chennai, appointed a team of experienced and skilled teachers, pay attention towards each special and there are well trained the housekeeping personal. In fact the school is having experienced and skilled teachers, well trained housekeeping personal and it is specially taking care of the children admitted here. The Complainant had visited the institution and had personally verified all the facilities available and he had volunteered to admit his child in the school. The Opposite Party had received the amount of Rs.14,500/- on 10.07.2014 and had issued a valid receipt for the same. The contention that the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5000/- more is to be proved strictly. It is totally incorrect for the Complainant to complain that the staff of the Opposite Party had not kept the Complainant’s son in a good and the hygiene condition. The Complainant child attended school 12 days and even on those days the child was taken care promptly by this Opposite Party. The Complainant already returned a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant child was provided with books and uniforms with the payment which he had made. Therefore, there is no cause of action arise for this Complaint and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4.POINT:1
The admitted facts are that the Opposite Party is running a school in the name of ‘M/S. Future World Gifted School’ Which is meant for Special Children suffering from Autism and the Complainant admitted his special child in the Opposite Party school on 09.07.2014 and the Complainant also paid a tuition fee of Rs.14,500/- under Ex.A1 and after attending the school for some time, the Complainants stopped his child from attending the school and the Opposite Party also returned a sum of Rs.8,000/- out of the amount paid by the Complainant and the same was acknowledged by the Complainant.
5. The Complainant contended that he has paid a sum of Rs.14,500/- for one year and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards occupational therapy for one year and therefore he is still eligible for refund of Rs.11,500/- from the Complainant and to pay the same the Complainant issued Ex.A2 legal notice and the said notice was acknowledged by the Opposite Party under Ex.A3 and even after that the Opposite Party has not paid the balance amount and hence he has filed this Complaint for Deficiency in Service.
6. The Opposite Party would reply that he had refunded a sum of Rs.8,000/- and he also gave books, school uniform and other accessories and therefore for such accessories the Opposite Party retained the balance amount and the same need not be returned to the Complainant and in view of the same this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.
7. Ex.A1 is the proof for payment of Rs.14,500/- towards school fees. No other proof filed by the Complainant to show that he had paid another sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Party. Hence it is concluded that the Complainant paid only a sum of Rs.14,500/- to the Opposite Party for the education of the Complainant child with the Opposite Party.
8. It is pleaded in the written version that the Complainant child was provided with the books and uniforms. This fact was admitted by the Complainant in his proof affidavit. Therefore it is proved that the Opposite Party provided books and uniforms. Since the child left the school, the books and uniforms supplied to the Complainant child should be with him and the same cannot used by any other child. The counsel for Opposite Party argued that after deducting the books and uniforms charges they have refunded a sum of Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, after deducting books and uniforms charges the Opposite Party refunded a sum of Rs.8,000/- is reasonable. The Opposite Party relied judgment reported in 2007 (4) CPJ 409 (Sri Ganga Higher Secondary School Vs. C. Nithya (Minor)) where in held that the “District Forum directed the Opposite Party to refund 1/3rd of the amount collected from Complainant plus Rs.500 as cost” confirmed by the State Commission. In the above referred case out of the amount paid by the Consumer only 1/3rd amount was refunded held to be justified. Whereas in the case in hand the Complainant paid only a sum of Rs.14,500/- and the Opposite Party refunded a sum of Rs.8,000/- which is more than 50% of the amount paid by the Complainant justified. Therefore, from the above circumstances the Opposite Party reasonably returned more than 50% of the amount that too even before issuance of the Ex.A2 legal notice establishes the bonafied conduct of the Opposite Party. Therefore in such circumstances, we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.
9. POINT:2
Since the Opposite Party has not committed Deficiency in Service the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 31st day of March 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 10.07.2014 School Admission fee payment Receipt
Ex.A2 dated 24.11.2014 Legal Notice issued to the Opposite Party
Ex.A3 dated 25.11.2014 Acknowledgement Card
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
…….NIL……
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
