Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/415

Amit Jethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal A.S.Modern Sr.Secondary School - Opp.Party(s)

Nrinder Chhibba Adv.

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:415 dated 29.08.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 20.03.2023.

 

Amit Jethi, aged 34 yrs, son of Sh. Sham Lal Jethi son of Sh. Bal Krishan Jethi, resident of H. No.24/106, St. No.3-R, Ward No.30, Khalsa School Road, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.         

                    ……Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Principal, A.S. Modern Senior Secondary School, Malerkotla Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.       
2. A.S. High School Trust, Khanna,
3. A.S. High School Managing Committee, of         A.S. Modern Senior Secondary School, Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                             …….Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Narinder Chhibba, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant namely Lavanya was studying in the school of opposite party in Nursery Class having roll No.299 Section Pansy. On 30.04.2019, the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1000/- on account of Retirement Corpus and other charges  which were not liable to be recovered from him or his ward as the retirement funds are to be provided to the teachers is the inter-se arrangement between the opposite parties and the teachers engaged by them. The complainant further submitted that under the head of Retirement Corpus, lakhs of rupees are being collected and misappropriated by the opposite parties. The payment of retirement corpus and other illegal charges are totally wrong, uncalled for, unconstitutional, arbitrary and are liable to be withdrawn as the same are against rules. The complainant served a legal notice dated 17.07.2019 upon the opposite parties to refund the amount charged under the head Retirement Corpus but to no avail. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has caused harassment, pain and suffering to the complainant for which he is entitled for damages of Rs.50,000/-. Hence this complaint whereby prayer has been made to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.1000/- (Retirement Corpus) along with damages of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the opposite party is run by A.S. High School Trust and Management Society which is the necessary party. The complainant has no locus standee to file the present complaint. The opposite party is an Educational Intuition meant for parting education to its students and does not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the opposite party is run without the grant-in-aid by the Government and is running the school with donations and the fee and other incidental charges from the students.    

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties submitted that they asked to deposit Rs.1000/- on account of retirement corpus and other charges which are within the permissible limit of fee structure fixed by the Government as they have to pay the retirement benefits to its employees as the school does not receive any aid from the Government. Moreover, the funds of the school are under audit and are passed in the General Body Meeting of the Management. The opposite parties denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                During the course of proceedings, the complainant moved an application for amendment of complaint by adding opposite party No.2 and 3 as party which was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2021.

4.                In support of his exparte claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the legal notice dated 17.07.2019, Ex. C2 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C3 is the letter dated 28.05.2019 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ex. C4 is the receipt showing deposit retirement corpus and other charges and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Barinder Dewett, General Secretary of A.S. High School Trust and Management Society along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of his Aadhar card, Ex. R2 is the copy of report of committee for fee rationalization and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply, affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                Undisputably, daughter of the complainant was a student of opposite party’s school run by its Managing Committee i.e. opposite party No.3. According to the counsel for the opposite parties, it is a private institution and its fees are regulated by the Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Bill, 2016 and in the present case as well the amount of Rs.1000/- was deposited as retirement corpus vide Ex. C4 and the same has been legally levied under the said act. He further contended that the aforesaid deposit of fee is an activity associated with imparting knowledge and as such, the present complaint against the opposite parties is not maintainable. However, the counsel for the complainant contended that the payment of retirement corpus are totally wrong, uncalled for, unconstitutional, arbitrary and are liable to be withdrawn as the same are against rules.

8.                In a case titled as Manu Solanki Vs Vinayaka Mission University in 2020(1) CPJ 210, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi after considering multiple judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India broadly laid down the following principles:-

(a)     in strict terms, coaching centers do not fall within the definition of ‘Educational Institutions’

(b)     any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like ‘Coaching Centers’ will fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, and

(c )     institutions rendering education including vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imp0arting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. Except coaching institutions, will not fall within 1986 Consumer Protection Act.

 Further in LBS Group of Education Institute Vs Arjun Singh and others 2021(1) CPJ 151, it has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the institution rendering education including vocations course and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport etc. except coaching institutions will not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that the complainant does not fall within purview of a consumer and therefore, the present complaint cannot be said to be maintainable as against the opposite parties.      

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Amit Jethi Vs Principal A.S. Modern School                CC/19/415

Present:       Sh. Narinder Chhibba, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments of the complainant heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.