Date of Filing:17/02/2011

        Date of Order:20/04/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  20^th DAY OF APRIL 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.314 OF 2011

Sri. C.K. Venkatesh,

Aged About 41 years,

S/o. Late Krishnappa,

No.493, 2^nd Cross, Model Colony,

Yeshwanthpur,

Bangalore-560 022.                                                                 ….  Complainant.

V/s

New Baldwin Residential School,

Dodda Banaswadi,

Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road,

Bangalore-560 043,

Rep. by Mr. Venugopal, The Chairman.                                               …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,07,600/- along with interest are necessary:-

          Lured by the paper publication and the assurance of the opposite party the complainant took the prospectus and the application form for his son Master. Dhanush K.V from the opposite party on 17.02.2010 and on 27.02.2010 filled the application form and the opposite party issued registration form confirming the admission of the complainant’s son.  The yearly fees was Rs.75,000/-.  On 22.05.2010 an admission card was issued in favour of the complainant’s son on payment of Rs.20,000/- towards admission fees.  The complainant has further paid Rs.34,600/- towards admission fee, boarding and lodging charges plus pocket money of Rs.3,000/-.  In all paid Rs.37,600/-.  The complainant was due Rs.17,400/- at the time of taking back of his child.  The son of the complainant along with some other students were placed in a poor conditioned hostel facility which looks like a godown, where there are no basic amenities nor provided good food, nor looked about the health of the complainant’s son.  Even first aid treatment was not provided when the complainant’s son became ill and suffered with severe fever.  The bright future of the complainant’s son was curtailed and the progress report for the month of June-2010 evidences the same.  The complainant wished to take back his son from the residential facilities and requested the opposite party to continue his son for school studies as there was no chances to get admission in any other high school.  The opposite party without any mercy asked the complainant to take back his son completely and told that they will not refund the amount back.  The opposite party failed to issue transfer certificate.  On 05.08.2010 the opposite party issued the TC, but failed to pay the amount back.  The son of the complainant was admitted on 22.05.2010 for 8^th standard and on 20.07.2010 he was taken back.  The act of the opposite party in not providing good quality education and not providing good shelter, good food and hostel facility is deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant is entitled to Rs.57,600/- the amount paid by him and Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation.  Hence the complaint.  

2.      In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

This is not a consumer dispute.  The matter is exclusively triable by a Civil Court.  The definitions of “Complainant”, “Complaint”, “Consumer Dispute” and “Service, as defined in section 2(1) of the CP Act do not cover the claims in this case.  The complainant is not a consumer.  It is hopelessly barred by time.  The opposite party is running an international residential school by providing the international standard and quality in education, boarding and all other services.  Thousands of school students and parents are happy about the opposite party services.  The complainant is making a false allegation only to tarnish the image of the school for which the opposite party reserves right to initiate appropriate action against the complainant before proper forum.  The complainant is making false allegations without any substance or proof.  Cot and other facilities are reserved for students in hostel for a particular year the same could not be transferred to any others until the completion of that year.  Accordingly the terms and conditions, rules are mentioned in the application and prospectus.  It is explicitly clear that once fees is paid it will not be refunded and the complainant has agreed and admitted to all the conditions and signed the application.  The complainant has obtained transfer certificate of his son for the reasons best known to him and it cannot be attributed as deficiency in service.  The commissioner can be appointed to verify the quality of education and other services provided by the opposite party in the residential school/hostel which could bring a clear picture about the quality of education and other facilities.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate the respective cases the complainant has filed a memo stating that the complaint and the documents should be read as his evidence.  The opposite party has filed his affidavit and documents.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?

2. What Order?

5.      Our findings are:-

Point (A)    :                  In the Negative.

Point (B)    :                  As per the final Order

                                      for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the evidence both oral and documentary on record, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party is running “New Baldwin Residential School” situated at Dodda Banaswadi, Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road, Bangalore, and it has issued a broucher booklet, prospectus which has been produced by the opposite party and it is unchallenged.  The complainant with an intention to admit his son Master. Dhanush K.V. had obtained the application form by paying Rs.540/- on 17.02.2010 by receipt No.2679.  He had obtained the prospectus verified the school and hostel facilities and then he had applied for this.  Subsequently the complainant and his son were called for written test/discussion on 27.02.2010.  After attending the interview as per the documents produced by the complainant the son of the complainant was selected, he was admitted to the 8^th standard and the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on that day and he paid Rs.27,600/- on 20.04.2010 and the complainant’s son was an inmate in the hostel and he was a student at the opposite party’s school, the complainant took the TC of his son and the complainant’s son attended the school and hostel up to 20.07.2010 and the TC was taken on 05.08.2010.  These are all admitted facts.  Subsequently after two months on 29.10.2010 the complainant issued notice to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to pay the amount back and compensation.  How the school authorities will pay back the amount? It is un answered.

7.       The entire grievance of the complainant is the standard of education in the opposite party school is not good, the residential facility is not good, even the first-aid and the medical treatment has not been given.  These allegations are specifically denied by the opposite party.  The allegation of the complainant in this regard is as bald as it could be.  How the standard of education is bad?  What was the standard of education that was expected and that has been agreed is not whispered?  How it falls short is not explained.

8.       Further the complainant never stated how his son was ill?  When he was ill?  What was the treatment given by the opposite party or the Doctor?  The said allegation is as bald as it could be.  There is no material, not even a scrap of paper is produced before this Forum to prove that his son has suffered ill-health and he was not treated properly.

9.       The complainant has stated that the hostel facility is not good.  How it is not good?  Only after seeing the hostel the complainant has got his son admitted to the hostel, How the facility is bad is not at all stated.  The allegation is as bald as it could be.  The prospectus produced by the opposite party clearly goes to show that in the school / in the hostel it is of international standards.  The photographs in the prospectus clearly establishes the same.  The opposite party has buses also.  It has swimming pool, the class room is very clean and it has computers also then how can the complainant say that the facilities are bad?  Once the student has been taken the admission that too in a residential school one seat is gone, the opposite party has to keep it vacant.  If it is kept vacant naturally it will suffer.  The complainant’s son was there in the hostel and in the school for about two months and he had paid only Rs.54,000/- and the rest of the year fees also have gone and it has become a burden on opposite party.  Hence there is no deficiency in service.

10.     The opposite party have clearly stated that a commissioner may be appointed to verify the school and the hostel facilities and the education given therein.  The complainant could have got an expert taken to the hostel and school of the opposite party and get the report of the expert to show that it is not in accordance with the prospectus and hence it is deficiency in service, that has not been done.  Except the self statements of the complainant there is no other material furnished by the complainant to prove his contentions.  The document produced by the complainant does not prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.

2.  Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20^th Day of April 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT