Date of filing: 5.2.2013. Date of disposal: 9.5.2013. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II: VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER. SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 C.C.No.23 of 2013 Between: Sri I.Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o Late Ramakrishniah, Hindu, 45 years, Superintendent of Central Excise, 45 years, H.No.18-78/2, 1st Cross, Nagarampalem Road, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam – 41. . … Complainant. AND 1. Narayana Group of Institutions Rep., by its Chairman Dr.P.Narayana, Father’s name not known to the complainant, Hindu, 57 years, Business, Plot No.160, H.No.2- 56/33/15/160, Survey of India, Madhapur (PO), Near Chandnaik Nagar Thanda, Hyderabad – 500 081. 2. Narayana IIT Olympiad School, Rep., by its Principal B.Suraiah, Father’s name not know to the complainant, Hindu, 48 years, C/o Narayana IIT Olypiad School, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada – 10. .… Opposite Parties. This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 1.5.2013 in the presence of Sri D.Butchi Babu, Counsel for complainant and of Sri K.Jayaram, Counsel for opposite parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following: O R D E R (Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari) This complainant is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 1. The averments of the complaint are in brief: The opposite parties are engaged in running educational institution all over Andhra Pradesh and they send their representatives to the houses of students, persuading them to join in its institution and makes lots of promises about the teaching, hostel facilities and other extra curricular activities in their institution. Believing the same the complainant joined his son in 2nd opposite party institution in VIII standard as a hostler in the month of June, 2010 for the academic year 2010-2011. the complainant joined his son in the 2nd opposite party school for three years, i.e., till completing the school education. At the time of admission the 2nd opposite party stated that the fee will be Rs.85,000/- per annum for all the three years which includes hostel and mess charges. The complainant paid Rs.85,000/- for the first year and the son of the complainant successfully completed his VIII standard. After completion of summer vacation the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party on 12.6.2011 to join his son in IX Class, the principal of the 2nd opposite party demanded the complainant to pay Rs.90,000/- for that academic year. The complainant refused to pay the increased amount and said that he will pay only Rs.85,000/- as agreed earlier. The 2nd opposite party accepted the same and asked the complainant to pay 50% of the fee immediately. As the complainant did not bring such amount he paid Rs.15,000/- only and asked time for payment of balance of 50% amount till 18th of that month. The 2nd opposite party accepted for the same and admitted his son. Subsequently the wife of the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party on 18.6.2011 to pay balance of 50% fee. The Principal of the 2nd opposite party again demanded her to pay fee of Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.85,000/-. When the complainant himself contacted the 2nd opposite party through phone, the same demand was repeated and asked the complainant to take away his son if he does not pay the fee as demanded by them. In the said circumstances the complainant took away his son from the 2nd opposite party institution and requested to refund the fee amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,400/- which was paid towards pocket money to his son at the time of joining in the school in 2010. Then the 2nd opposite party asked the complainant to fill a form in a book and after that they will return the fee. The complainant filled the form and submitted the same to the 2nd opposite party and requested to refund the fee. The staff of the 2nd opposite party stated that they are not willing to pay a single pie and the complainant can do what he wishes. The complainant went away from the institution of the opposite parties and addressed number of letters demanding the opposite parties to refund the fee paid by him, but there was no response from the opposite parties which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,400/- paid by the complainant on various dates, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. 2. The 2nd opposite party filed the version and the 1st opposite party adopted the same. The version of the opposite parties is in brief: The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant’s son himself wantonly left the school and the said fact was known to the complainant. The son of the complainant joined in some other school. The complainant and his son with their free will and consent left the school. The complainant did not pay the amounts as mentioned in the complaint and the said receipts were fabricated for the purpose of their false claim. In the application itself it was clearly mentioned that if the student does not join owing to any reason, reservation fee will not be refundable and if the student left the school for any reason no amount will be refundable. The complainant and his son knowing fully about the rules and regulations of the school left the school wantonly. As there is no any default or negligence on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint. The complainant without any cause taken away his son from the school and he himself is responsible for the career and future of his son. Due to acts of the complainant and his son the opposite parties kept the seat vacant and the opposite parties themselves sustained loss. As there is no any understanding in between the parties with regard to any discount, the complainant has to pay the entire fee. But the complainant without paying the total fee making false allegations against the opposite parties to achieve his illegal demands. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 and on behalf of the opposite parties Sri B.Suraiah, Principal of the 2nd opposite party gave his affidavit and no documents were marked. 4. Heard and perused. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not refunding the fee paid by the complainant for his son? Or not? 2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief? 3. To what relief the complainant is entitled? POINTS 1 AND 2:- 6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant joined his son in the 2nd opposite party school at Vijayawada in VIII class on paying the fee of Rs.85,000/- for the academic year 2010-2011 under Ex.A.3 dated 23.6.2010. At the time of joining the son of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party informed that fees per annum is Rs.85,000/-. The son of the complainant completed his VIII standard and after vacations the complainant came to 2nd opposite party to join his son in IX standard. Then the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the fee is increased from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.90,000/- and demand him to pay 50% of the total fee on the moment. On request of complainant, the 2nd opposite party agreed the fee Rs.85,000/-. As the complainant has no sufficient money with him he paid Rs.10,400/- towards reservation fee under Ex.A.1 dated 14.6.2011 and Rs.4,600/- towards books issue under Ex.A.2 dated 14.6.2011. Later the wife of the complainant came with her son to the 2nd opposite party to join him in IX standard, then again the 2nd opposite party demanded her to pay Rs.90,000/- per annum and to pay 50% of the total fee immediately. When she questioned about the payment of increased fee, the 2nd opposite party asked her to left the school with her son and to join in another school. When the complainant contact with the 2nd opposite party same answer was given by him and stated that if the complainant did not want to pay the increased fee, he could take away his son from their institute. The complainant took away his son from the 2nd opposite party’s institution and requested to refund the fee of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,400/- which was paid for pocket money to his son. The 2nd opposite party asked the complainant to fill a form in book and after that they would refund the amount. He did do and submitted the same and asked the 2nd opposite party to refund the amount paid by him, but the 2nd opposite party refused to pay the same. The complainant addressed letters to the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.6 dated 8.9.2011, 15.10.2011, 20.7.2012 respectively. As there is no response from the 2nd opposite party, he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.7 dated 13.8.2012 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 through his advocate and the 2nd opposite party received the same under Ex.A.8 and kept quiet. 7. The opposite parties says that the complainant’s son himself wantonly left the school and the complainant and his son left the school with their free will and consent. The complainant did not pay the amounts as mentioned in the complaint and the said receipts were fabricated. In the application itself it was clearly mentioned that if the student does not join owing to any reason, reservation fee will not be refundable. Due to the acts of the complainant and his son the opposite parties kept the seat vacant and they themselves sustained loss. The complainant has to pay the entire fee, but the complainant without paying the total fee, making false allegations against the opposite parties to achieve his illegal demands. 8. On hearing both the parties we, the Forum cannot accept the submissions of the opposite parties counsel as we noticed that the complainant paid fee Rs.15,000/- on 12.6.2011, for the academic year 2011-12 and he is willing to pay the remaining balance of Rs.70,000/- as agreed by both parties in the year 2010. But the opposite parties increased the fee for Rs.5,000/- for the next year and demanded to pay the same. When the complainant refused to pay the increased fee the opposite parties asked him to leave their school with his son if they are not willing to pay the increased fee. The opposite parties say that the son of the complainant on his will and consent left the school, therefore no fees is refundable and it was clearly mentioned in the application form. We have to mention the rulings given by the National Commission in (1) in FIIT JEE Ltd Vs Dr.Minathi Rath” 1 (2012) CPJ 194 (NC) “Any term of contract which is unconscionable and viodable is not enforceable”. No service provider like training institutes or coaching centers or educational centers can be allowed toforfeit the fees or consideration received in advance in case the student has not availed the service. Thus, the terms “fees once paid is not refundable is unconscionable as well as voidable and therefore, not actionable”. No service provider can take or charge the consideration of the service which it has either not given or has not been availed. (2) IV (2012) CPJ 526 Good Shepherd Modern English School Vs. Hamsa P & ANR that the complainant disputed the undertaking given at the time of admission which is not proved. If at all any undertaking obtained from the complainant, it is to be presumed that at the time of admission the school authorities are in a dominant position and the student/parent might be under pressure to sign the undertaking in order to join in the school. So an illegal act could not be made legal by force or under compelling situations. We are of opinion that the opposite parties would prepare so many terms and conditions for their own benefit which are not permitted under law. The opposite parties failed to prove why they have to increase the fee for the next year. It seems the opposite parties want to demand the students and their parents by increasing fees for term to term as they wish. The opposite parties, say that due to acts of the complainant and his son the opposite parties kept the seat vacant and they sustained loss. The opposite parties failed to prove that the seat was left vacant and they sustained loss. When the opposite parties did not render the education to the complainant’s son, they have to refund the fee to the complainant. Without giving any service the opposite parties have no right to retain any fee of any student with them. In this case the opposite parties collected the fee of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and retained the same with them without rendering any education to his son which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get the relief from the opposite parties. There is no proof to say that the pocket money of the complainant’s son which was paid in 2010 is with the opposite parties. It was not known whether it was spent by the son of the complainant or not. POINT No.3:- 9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receiving the amount i.e., 12.6.2011 till realization and to pay Rs.2,000/-] (Two thousand rupees only) as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 9th day of May, 2013. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For the complainant: For the opposite parties:- None None DOCUMENTS MARKED On behalf of the complainant: Ex.A.1 14.06.2011 Photocopy of fee receipt issued by the opposite parties for Rs.10,400/-. Ex.A.2 14.06.2011 Photocopy of Fee receipt issued by the opposite parties for Rs.4,600/-. Ex.A.3 23.06.2010 Photocopy of Fee receipt issued by the opposite parties for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A.4 08.09.2011 Letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A.5 15.10.2011 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A.6 20.07.2012 letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A.7 13.08.2012 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.8 . . Postal acknowledgement. For the opposite parties: Nil. PRESIDENT | 
