Through these proceedings purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the original opposite parties seek to assail the concurrent findings and orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalore and the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. The consumer dispute before the District Consumer Forum was raised alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners in connection with imparting education to the ward of the complainant, namely, Raag Fernades, who was admitted as a boarder in the school of the petitioners by paying a sum of Rs.4,15,576/-. After about one month of stay, he was suspended from the school for certain alleged indisciplinary activities committed by the son of the complainant. According to the complainant, his son was kept in a solitary confinement in a room, which did not even have the basic amenities like toilet etc. The complaint was resisted by the -3- petitioners denying the allegations of any deficiency or highhandedness on their part but it was not disputed by the complainant that his son was suspended for certain undesirable activities during his stay in the school. Liability to refund the fee and charges received by the school or any part thereof was denied on the strength of the brochure/agreement between the parties. The complainant filed complaint claiming refund of Rs.3,14,672/- with interest @18% and of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages towards deficiency in service before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum making certain observation directed the petitioners to refund the amount of Rs.2,64,672/- to the complainant. Besides it awarded punitive damages of Rs. 1 lakh with the stipulation that half of the amount shall be payable to the complainant and the balance shall be deposited in the legal aid account of the forum and Rs. 3,000/- as costs. We have heard Mr. Sharan Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioners and have considered his submissions. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the complainant had deposited hefty amount of -4- Rs.4,15,576/- towards fee for the entire academic session as also towards hostel charges but the son of the complainant could avail the facility only for about a month, the order for refund of Rs.2,64,672/- cannot by any stretch be said to be excessive. Award of punitive damages of Rs. 1 lakh is also justified if we take into account the nature and extent of deficiency and highhandedness shown by the school authorities towards the student even assuming that he had indulged in a certain inappropriate activities. We see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fora below. The revision petition as such is dismissed.