Complaint filed on: 25.10.2016

                                                                                                                            Complaint Disposed on:07.10.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.104/2016

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF OCTOMBER 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

B.P.Raviverma S/o Srihariverma,

Aged about 40 years,

R/o Near telephone exchange,

Belt road, Chikmagalur.

(By  Sri/Smt. D.K.Lakshmikanth, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENT/S:

Nurture International School,

Hiremangalur-Kadur Bye-pass road,

Chikmagalur.

Represented by its principal.

 (OP - By Sri/Smt. Gerald Dias, Advocate)

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging deficiency in service in not running sixth standard classes without government permission. Hence, prays for direction against Op to pay the admission fee of Rs.67,000/- along with Rs.50,000/- an amount which was paid to St. Joseph Convent along with compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for deficiency in service.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

        The Op is running a school by name Nurture International School at Bye-pass road, Chikmagalur, they used to advertise regarding the prospects and educational facilities available in their school and since the complainant was not happy with the earlier school had approached the Op and made enquiries about the classes, for which Op promised to provide good education and also assured necessary permission to run classes has been obtaining from necessary educational board and government and assured the complainant for better education of his daughter and canvased the complainant to get admission into their school, accordingly the complainant with a fond hope based on assurance given by Op, he discharged his daughter from the earlier school and got admit to 5^th class in Op school and paid admission fee of Rs.67,000/- as demanded by them. The complainant’s daughter after admission finished the 5^th standard in the Op school and promoted to 6^th standard in the year 2015. In the year 2016 after the final exams of the daughter of the complainant the Op asked the complainant to approach them for some discussion, where the complainant came to know that the Op had not at all obtained permission from the concerned authority to run the classes for 6^th standard and above. Inspite of no permission from the concerned authority Op have admitted the daughter of the complainant to 6^th standard and have conducted the classes for nearly one year. When the complainant took the Op to task, they pleaded with the complainant not to make any publicity as it will tarnish the image of the institution. The complainant was astonished by the said statement where his daughter’s one year was completely wasted and immediately shifted his daughter to some other institutions, even the other institutions are only ready to accommodate the complainant’s daughter again to 6^th standard and not to 7^th standard as necessary marks card of 6^th standard and T.C. was not issued by Op.

        The complainant further alleges that with a heavy difficulty the complainant begged with St. Joseph Convent to accommodate his daughter and got admitted to St. Joseph Convent and they have forced to pay nearly Rs.50,000/- to the St. Joseph Convent including donation and necessary fee. The Op has conducted classes of 6^th standard without permission of the concerned authority and government, due to which the daughter of the complainant suffered inconvenient and constrained to admit other school. There afterwards complainant also issued a legal notice dated 10.08.2016, for which Op has replied untenably on 27.09.2016. Hence, Op is liable to refund an amount of Rs.67,000/- which was paid towards admission of the child for 6^th standard and also liable to pay Rs.50,000/- which was paid to St. Joseph Convent for admission of the daughter of the complainant along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.

3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, the complainant’s daughter by name Ashitha Verma got admitted to the 5^th standard in the year 2014, but they do not know that the daughter of the complainant was not happy with the earlier school which made them to admit to their school. Anyhow complainant approached this Op in order to admit his daughter and promised the complainant to provide good education. After completion of the 5^th standard the daughter of the complainant also promoted to 6^th standard prevalent in the school. At the time of admission to the 6^th standard the school authorities informed the complainant that they have already sought permission from government to run 6^th and 7^th standard, but permission is not yet granted and that there is likelihood of permission being granted to run 6^th and 7^th standard. However the government has not granted the permission to run 6^th and 7^th standard in the year 2015-16, then the complainant stated that he will admit his daughter to some other school and obtained T.C. from the school, but it is false that the complainant’s daughter final exam has over and she is suffered a loss of one year in their school.

        Op further contended that, they are not aware that other institution are already to accommodate the daughter of the complainant to the 6^th standard only and not to 7^th standard. They also do not know that the complainant and his wife have begged the St. Joseph Convent to accommodate their daughter and got admitted by paying Rs.50,000/- to the said school. In fact the complainant approached this Op stating that they are going to admit the daughter of the complainant to some other school and obtained T.C. and marks card from this Op.

        The notice issued by complainant was suitably replied. This Op has informed the complainant that the permission was not granted by the government in the year 2015-16, since the sanctioning permission is not on the hands of this Op, they also informed the complainant that they have applied permission for 6^th and 7^th standard and moved the file at government level since the permission was not granted, they said the complainant to admit his daughter to some other school. With a due information only the complainant having agreed and admitted his daughter in this Op school for 5^th standard. Now as on today the government has sanctioned the permission to conduct 6^th, 7^th and 8^th standard in the Op school for the period 2016-17 for 6^th standard, 2017-18 for 7^th standard and 2018-19 for 8^th standard.

There is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op as alleged by complainant. Before admitting the Ashith varma for 5^th standard in this Op school they have informed the complainant with respect to the permission to run the 6^th and 7^th standard. Moreover the complainant has not suffered any mental agony or loss as alleged. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. Op also filed affidavit and marked one document as Ex.R.1.

5.     Heard the arguments.

6.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Negative.  
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op, we noticed that the daughter of the complainant was admitted to 5^th standard to Nurture International School of Op situated at Bye-pass Road, Chikmagalur in the year 2014. After completion of the 5^th standard she promoted to 6^th standard in the year 2015. During the continuation of the 6^th standard complainant came to know that the Op have not at all obtained a permission from the concerned authority and government to run the 6^th standard for the particular period. After knowledge of the said fact complainant rushed to the Op and enquired about the permission, where he confirmed that the permission was not granted by concerned authority to Op to run the 6^th standard.  Immediately, complainant approached St. Joseph Convent where they suggested the complainant to admit his daughter for 6^th standard only and not to 7^th standard. Hence, due to no permission to run the 6^th standard the daughter of the complainant suffered one year loss. Hence, alleges deficiency in service and prays for payment of admission fee of Rs.67,000/- along with the amount paid at St. Joseph Convent and compensation for deficiency in service.

9. During course of trial we came to know that the daughter of the complainant got admitted to 7^th standard in the year 2016 and obtained T.C. and marks card from Op school. Such being the case we found there is no hardship or inconvenience caused to the complainant and during course of trial we also noticed that the Op had subsequently got permission to run the 6^th, 7^th and 8^th standard for subsequent years. Anyhow the complainant has not suffered any inconvenience due to lack of permission to run the school. The daughter of the complainant was admitted to the 7^th standard as usual. Hence, we found no damages caused to the complainant from Op side and complainant also failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-  

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.
2. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 7^th day of October 2017).

 (B.U.GEETHA)         (H. MANJULA)      (RAVISHANKAR)

     Member                    Member                 President

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:

Ex.P.1              - 2 bills dtd:28.05.2015.

Ex.P.2              - 3 bills dtd:05.02.2016.

Ex.P.3              - Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.P.4              - Reply to legal notice.

Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:

Ex.R.1 - Copy of permission letter.

Dated:07.10.2017                         President 

                                      District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

RMA