Delhi

StateCommission

A/104/2015

M/S GOODLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANKAJ MEHTA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  09.02.2017

Date of Decision : 20.02.2017

Appeal No. 104/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 03.09.2013  passed in Complaint Case No.513/2008 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-North-West.)

In the matter of:

 

M/s. Goodley Public School,

Through its Principal / Director,

BJ Block, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.                                                                                    …..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sh. Pankaj Mehta,

156, Swastik Kunj,

Sector-13, Rohini,

New Delhi-110088.

                                                                                                            ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

 

Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

            Shri Anil Srivastava, Member

 

1. Assailing the orders dated 3^rd September, 2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North-West) M/s. Goodley Public School through its Principal / Director, Shalimar Bagh, herein referred to as appellant, has preferred FA No.104/15 praying for setting aside the impugned judgement/ order, directing to refund an amount of Rs.24,200/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,500/- towards cost of litigation.  This amount was ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the OP (appellant herein) shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @10% per annum till the date of payment.

 

2. The facts of the case are these.

 

3. Sh. Tarun Sharma sought admission for his son Master Shubham Mehtra in Goodley  Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, the complainant before the District Forum, Shalimar Bagh by paying an amount of Rs.24,200/- on 24.01.2008 as per the break up as indicated below:-

 

Rs.200/-                    Admission

Rs.4,500/-                 Tuition Fee

Rs.500/-                    Caution Money

Rs.19,000/-               Other Charges.

 

4. Sh. Tarun Mehta states that he did not find his son’s name existing in the roll of the students of pre-nursery in the month of April 2008, nor he could not get satisfactory reply from the authorities when contacted. The Complainant thereafter applied for refund of the fee since his son’s name was not found in the list of the children admitted in the school but OP did not respond.  Complainant further states that his son had not attended  even a single class and hence entitled to get the total refund of the entire amount alongwith compensation and cost of litigation etc. He also averred that he was not given the break-up of Rs.19,000/- taken at the time of applying for admission on account of other charges, though an important component.

 

5. OP in their written statement filed before the District Fora denied all the allegations stating therein that the complainant had cooked up a story which is an afterthought. It is an admitted fact that admission was taken by paying the requisite amount as Rs.24,200/- on 24.01.2008 and since classes were to start in the month of April, 2008 there was no question of issuance of any roll number in January, 2008.  The admission to the child stood confirmed the moment the money was received and the receipt issued.  OP had also enclosed admission form duly filled in by the parents on 24.01.2008 as also declaration by the parent on the same day wherein he has accepted all the terms and conditions. OP also states that as per rule the complainant can be refunded only caution money of Rs.500/- in the event of withdrawal of admission and no more. The fact that admission to the child was done stands proved the day the fee was taken from the parents and the receipt issued. This fact has not been controverted by the respondent/complainant.

 

6. On perusal of the records we do not have any doubt about the factum of the admission. However, one undated letter received from the complainant is on record asking for refund of amount paid on the ground that admission of the child is not complete since no roll number was issued. We are unable to accept the contention since process of admission is complete on the day the receipt was issued. Mere fact that roll number was not issued is not a ground to dispute the factum of admission.  It can be termed only as a procedural lapse but no inference can be drawn about the admission having already been confirmed. We could understand and appreciate the argument regarding non-completion of admission if classes had started and the child was not permitted to attend the classes which is not the case at all.

 

7. It is well established under the law that no one can charge for the services not rendered. But in the given case it is apparent from the records that the process of admission is complete.  The respondent/complainant had sought the withdrawal of their child from the school, the fact not disputed even by the OP. It is also not in dispute  that the withdrawal of the admission was sought before the classes started. Regarding question of refund only caution money of Rs.500/- could have been returned keeping in view the agreement between the complainant and respondent done at the time of admission. In the given case service to the extent of admission of the  child was complete, the fact which remains uncontroverted by both the parties. To put it differently the service was rendered. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that OP is under no obligation to refund the entire amount of Rs.24,200/- to the complainant  as prayed for. The point whether the appellant is under  on obligation to refund the  amount  has to be examined in the light of the terms and conditions of admission as agreed to between the appellant and the respondent.   As per the agreement withdrawal of the admission would cast an obligation on the appellant to  refund only the caution money and no more.  We are in agreement with the view since withdrawal of the admission by the respondent was of their violition.   No records have been shown disputing the factum of admission.

 

8. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that order passed by the Ld. District Forum suffers from infirmity in as much as terms of the agreement between the parties at the time of admission which alone would operate, have not been examined in letter and spirit.

 

 The appellant having subscribed to the agreement is estopped from taking a view contrary to that.

 

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside.  Parties to bear their own cost.

 

10. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as also to the District Forum for information.

 

11. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Srivastava)                                                   (O.P. Gupta)                              

Member                                                                   Member (Judicial)                                               

                               ​