BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1547/2016

DATED ON THIS THE 8^th February 2019

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

MEMBER

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to refund Rs.1,06,550/- along with interest at 21% p.a. and to pay Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service and to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the consumer legal aid account for the unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenditure with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant intending to join his son to 3^rd standard, starting from August 2016, intimated the opposite party to pre blocking seat / admission and paid Rs.1,06,550/- on 24.05.2016.  Later expressing his inability to admit his son, requested opposite party to refund the amount paid by him, which was denied.  A legal notice was caused on 12.09.2016, calling upon to refund the amount, was replied untenably on 28.09.2016.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party and seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party filed version, denying the allegations.  The complainant was asked to transfer a sum of Rs.1,06,550/- for a seat in opposite party’s institution for taking admission of his son and not to block a seat.  As there was clear instructions, the amount paid towards the admission was not refunded.  Further, the complainant himself has withdrew the admission of his son to opposite party institution, but the opposite party has not cancelled the admission.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.   
4.     Both the parties filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied on several documents in support of their contention.  Written arguments filed by both side and heard the respective counsels.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
5.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party, for not refunding the amount deposited towards admission of his son and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant was working at HCL Technologies Ltd., had approached opposite party which is running a school under the name Koutilya Vidyalaya and intended to admit his son by name BHUVAN.P.M to 3^rd standard, starting from August 2016. As directed by opposite party deposited a sum of Rs.1,06,550/- for blocking a seat.  The opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the amount.  Due to his professional postings, the complainant could not admit his son to 3^rd standard, as such, sought for refund of the entire amount paid by him.  The opposite party denying refund of the amount, offered to block a seat for the next academic year on payment of the difference amount.  The legal notice dated 12.09.2016 calling upon to refund the amount was replied untenably, without refunding the amount.  Hence, the aggrieved sought for the reliefs. 
8.    The opposite party contended that, the complainant on going through the terms and conditions of opposite party institution, had approached them, and expressed his intention to admit his son to 3^rd standard at opposite party institution, starting from August 2016.  The opposite party deposited a sum of Rs.1,06,550/- towards admission of his son on 24.05.2016.  However, the opposite party failed to admit his son and in the month of August 2016, sought for refund of the entire deposited by him, expressing his inconvenience.  Since there was no provision and clear instruction that, the amount deposited was “non-refundable”, the opposite party offered to block a seat in the next academic year, which was denied by the complainant.  The complainant on his own withdrew the admission of his son, the opposite party have not cancelled the admission.  Thereby, opposite party denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by them and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9.      Admittedly, the complainant had approached opposite party institution, seeking admission for his son to 3^rd Standard.  On understanding the complete information relating to beginning of the academic year, fee structure, etc., he had paid Rs.1,06,550/- towards admission of his son and sought permission to admit his son in the beginning of August 2016, which was accepted by opposite party as a special case. Even though the academic year begins from June 2016. Unfortunately, the complainant himself had expressed his inability to admit his son to the opposite party institution, even though, the opposite party had kept reserved a seat for complainant’s son till August 2016, he demanded for refund of the entire amount deposited by him, which was admittedly denied by opposite party, as there was no provision for refund of the amount paid towards admission.  Further, the opposite party had also made an offer to block a seat for complainant’s son for the next academic year.  In spite of the same, the complainant had demanded for refund of the amount through this complaint and alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party and sought for compensation, which is not justified.
10. The complainant relied on several decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission, in support of his contention.  However, the same does not support the contention of the complainant, in view of voluntary demand for refund of the amount and for failure to admit his son even after the lapse of two months from the beginning of the academic year.
11. The opposite party also relied on several decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission and contended that the education is not a commodity, the educational institutions are not providing any kind of service and in the matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service (2017 CJ 727 (NC)).
12. In view of the above observations, we opine there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party.  Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
13. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought. Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 8^th February 2019)