Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/9/2018

The British School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poonam Awadh - Opp.Party(s)

Beant Singh Seemar, Adv.

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

​

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	09 of 2018
Date of Institution	17.01.2018
Date of Decision	19.01.2018

The British School, Sector-44/B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director, Sh. Ranjan Sethi.

           …..Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Poonam Awadh D/o Sh. Ram Awadh, resident of H.No.1207, Sector 68 Mohali.

                      …..Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate for the appellant.

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2017 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:-

“6]     Keeping in into consideration, the above facts & circumstances of the case, the Opposite Party is found to have indulged into unfair practice. Therefore, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party with directions to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 8.7.2014 till realization, with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant took admission in Opposite Party’s school on 08.07.2014 in Class-XI – Commerce Stream for the Session 2014-15 and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as advance fee, for the whole year vide Annexure C-2. It was stated that the complainant started attending classes at Opposite Party’s school, but after a week, the Opposite Party started pressurizing the complainant to take coaching at a private institute of their choice i.e. Helix Institute, Sector-34, Chandigarh and also harassed her, whereas the complainant was not at all interested in coaching and she was interested only in self-study. It was further stated that the complainant brought this matter to the notice of her father, who was also shocked to know about such malpractice adopted by Opposite Party. After that the complainant alongwith her father took the matter with the Administrator/Managing Director of the Opposite Party’s school, but the Opposite Party neither helped nor tried to resolve the issue. It was further stated that due to constrained and compelling circumstances created by the Opposite Party, the complainant pulled herself out of Opposite Party’s school on 10.07.2015, which caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant also requested the Opposite Party for refund of fee charged by it (Annexure C-3) in advance for full year, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed and not refunded the amount. It was further stated that a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Party, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. The Opposite Party had filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the story put forth by the complainant is an afterthought. It was stated that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as advance fee, but did not pay the balance fee of Rs.8400/-. It was further stated that the complainant concealed the fact that the fees was non-refundable as per receipt i.e. Annexure OP-1/2. It was further stated that the Opposite Party has nothing to do with any private institute (Helix Institute) and it is well equipped with well trained professional, experts, faculty and facilities to provide better education and that the allegation of the complainant is baseless. It was further stated that the complainant never turned up to attend the classes at Opposite Party’s school, rather number of calls were made to the complainant to attend the classes, but she failed to attend any class, for the reasons best known to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Party never forced the complainant, to join the Helix Institute for coaching classes, against her will. It was further stated that no request for refund of the money paid in relation to admission was made by the complainant or her father. It was further stated that the representation dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure C-3) is false and fabricated document produced by the complainant, to get undue favour. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service, on their part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9. The complainant/respondent took admission in British School/Opposite Party in class 10+1 for the year 2014-15 mainly because of reputation of the said school. But, unfortunately after joining the school, she was pressurized by the school authorities to take tuition from the tutors, outside the school, which were of the choice of the school, which was totally against her will. The motive of the school in forcing for such type of tuitions is not clear. The complainant, therefore, left the school and took admission elsewhere. The British School/Opposite Party had taken Rs.50,000/-  as advance payment, for the entire year, but did not provide any professional service to the complainant and refused to refund the same, by saying that the said amount is not refundable, which is totally unethical and tantamounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the said appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage and the order of the learned Forum is upheld.
10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
11.  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the
    point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

19.01.2018

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

          [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                 Sd/-                  

                                                                                [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                   Sd/-                                              

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

GP

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.9 of 2018)

(The British School Vs. Poonam Awadh)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate for the appellant.

 

Dated the 19^th day of January 2018

 

ORDER

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

 

 

 

 

Sd/-                            Sd/-                                  Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

 

      

Gp