Haryana

Karnal

CC/257/2019

Ms. Ridhi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parth Public School - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Singh Lathar

05 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.257 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt. 09.05.2019

                                                        Date of decision 05.02.2021

 

Ms. Ridhi Singh minor daughter of Shri Rakesh Kumar resident of village Kaimla Tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal through her father Shri Rakesh Kumar being natural guardian and next friend, age 30 years, Aadhar card no.5142 6620 2701.

…….Complainant       

                                Versus

 

Parth Public School through its Principal, near Kathuria Hotel, G.T. Road, Gharaunda District Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Party.

 

      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.       

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Joginder Lathar counsel for complainant.

               Shri Vinod Dogra counsel for opposite party.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant approached the opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP) for seeking admission in class 3^rd standard for the session of 2019-2020 and OP after checking her previous class certificate/record taking eligibility test and interview etc. of Ridhi Singh agreed to give admission in class 3^rd standard on promotion basis after getting Rs.5000/- extra as promotion charges as she has cleared first standard from Arya Sr. Sec. School Gharaunda in the year 2018-2019 and after consent of OP the complainant deposited Rs.20,800/- admission fee and various kind of other charges +Rs.1500/- as registration fee which becomes Rs.22,300/- on 02.04.2019 at receipt no.252 admission no.20174829 (III-A). On 04.404.2019, complainant went in school of OP to attend the class, she was denied to attend the class 3^rd and her father was informed that his daughter cannot attend class 3^rd and she can attend class 2^nd standard only. On 05.04.2019 after long discussion and final denial of OP to the complainant to attend the class 3^rd, complainant got admission in class 2^nd in Arya Sr. Sec. School, Gharaunda on 08.04.2019 and OP assured complainant to refund his total fee of Rs.22,300/-in one or two days. Complainant approached the OPs several times and requested to refund the fee but OP did not pay the same and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the fee. Then, complainant sent a legal notice to OP in this regard but no reply has been received till date. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has come to the OP for the purpose of admission of his daughter-Ridhi Singh in 3^rd standard, however, it is wrong on the part of the complainant while saying that all the relevant record/certificate was shown to the OP for the purpose of his daughter in the school of OP. However, it is correct that the eligibility as well as interview of the complainant’s daughter was done and the daughter of complainant successfully passed the said examination of the school. However, it is wrong to say that she was given admission in 3^rd standard on promotion basis. But the real fact is that the complainant was asked to produce the 2^nd standard class examination issued from the previous school of the complainant and on the assurance of the complainant that he will produce/give the said certificate as well as school leaving certificate of previous school lateron, then the OP admitted the daughter of the complainant in 3^rd standard. It is admitted fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.5000/- with the OP as well as other expenses/fees etc. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, marksheet of Class 1^st Ex.C1, congratulation letter from Parth Public School Ex.C2, fee receipt Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipt of legal notice Ex.C5 and acknowledgement Ex.C6.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Adarsh Sethi Principal/Director of Parth Public School Ex.OP1, admission form Ex.OP2, date of birth certificate Ex.OP3, fee receipt Ex.OP4 and registration and pro. Receipt Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 12.02.2020.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 6.            Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant approached OP for taking admission in class-IIIrd for the session 2019-2020 and after checking requisite documents and taking interview of Ridhi Singh (complainant), OP agreed to give admission in Class-IIIrd on promotion basis after receiving Rs.5000/- extra as promotion charges. On 04.04.2019, complainant went in school of OP to attend the class, but OP denied the complainant to attend the class 3^rd. He further argued that after refusal by the OP for admission in 3^rd standard complainant got admission in Class 2^nd in Arya Sr. Secondary School, Gharaunda on 08.04.2019 and OP assured that it will refund the total fees in one or two days. He further argued that despite repeated requests, the OP did not refund the fees, rather has flatly refused to do so. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint. 

7.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP argued that the parents of complainant concealed the true facts from the OP. They sought time for submitting the documents of 2^nd standard and on their assurance, they admitted the complainant in 3^rd standard but finally they refused to submit the same. He further argued that the child being extra intelligent, the OP offered to pay the extra time to cover the syllabus of 2^nd standard till summer vacation so that complainant can be promoted to 3^rd standard in the month of July. Parents of complainant agreed for the same and paid Rs.5000/- as promotion charges for extra class and syllabus after her school time. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

8.             Admittedly, the complainant got admission in the school of OP in 3^rd standard. It is also admitted that the parents of the complainant paid Rs.22,300/- to the OP at the time of admission of complainant including promotion charges of Rs.5000/-. 

9.             The plea taken by the OP that the parents of the complainant at the time of admission of complainant in the school of OP suppressed that she was in 1^st standard in the previous school, has no force as result-cum-detailed marks card (Ex.C1), shows that earlier the complainant (Ridhi Singh) was in 1^st standard and as per fee receipt (Ex.OP4) issued by OP, it is also proved that OP himself has given admission to complainant in 3^rd standard. 

10.           Furthermore, the plea taken by the OP that complainant was admitted in the school on the condition that her parents will give her school leaving certificate and detailed marks card of 2^nd class within a period of a week has also no force as from the Congratulation letter (Ex.C2) issued by Parth Public School i.e. OP, it is proved that earlier the complainant was in 1^st standard and got admission in 3^rd standard directly on receiving promotion charges of Rs.5000/-. 

 11.          Furthermore, if the case of the OP is to be believed that it is the parents of the complainant, who had sought time for submitting the documents, even in that case plea taken by OP is also not tenable as it was the duty of the OP to check all the documents/record at the time of admission.

12.           However, from all the records i.e. detailed marks card (Ex.C1) it is clear that the complainant was in 1^st standard and from the congratulation letter (Ex.C2), it is clear that the complainant was admitted in 3^rd standard directly from 1^st standard. Hence, the complainant has proved her case by leading cogent and convincing evidence that she has got admission directly in 3^rd class by the OP after checking all the documents and obtaining interview and being found an extra intelligent student. Hence, the act of OP by restraining the complainant not to appear in 3^rd standard amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.22,300/-, including compensation and litigation expenses. 

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.22,300/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposition till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.   The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.02.2021                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)           (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary

            Member                           Member