Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

                   Complainant Monoranjan Das has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for not refunding the admission fees of his son and praying therein for direction to the OP to refund a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- to the complainant with interest @ 15% from the date of admission till realization of the entire amount and a sum of                  Rs. 10, 000/- towards mental,  physical and financial agony and pay a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- towards cost of litigation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had admitted his son Spandan Das in Model Public School, Bhubaneswar on payment of Rs. 40, 000/- for Class 11^th towards admission, tuition and for practical classes on 23.08.2021. Soon after the admission, the institution was closed due to Covid-19 and the OP advised the complainant that the institution will conduct online mode classes which will be intimated to him in due course but no such instruction was received from the Opposite Party. As no instruction was received for a pretty long time, he brought back his son and his SLC from the institution. But, the OP did not return the fees for online classes for which he sought certain information from the OP under provision of the RTI Act. But, no such information was provided to him. As the OP did not return the admission etc. fees to the complainant, he filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs discussed in preceeding paragraph.

2.           Upon notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed the written version through his Advocate. In his written statement, the Opposite Party challenged the status of the complainant as a consumer and the jurisdiction of the Commission to sit over the matter. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that the son of the complainant was admitted in his institution as per the terms and conditions and the rules and regulations were clearly explained and being satisfied, he admitted his son and as the school was closed due to Covid-19, the school conducted online classes and also conducted off-line examinations and the son of the complainant was attending the online classes for about 82 days out of the total 110 days of total working days. The father of the student applied for SLC on the ground to admit his son in a nearby school at Nuapada. After 10 months from the date of issue of SLC, he filed this case before this Commission with ulterior motive. As per the terms and conditions of the School, once the money was deposited, it will not be returned back. So, as per the rules, the money was not returned and the complainant in order to harass the Opposite Party without any cause of action has filed this case which needs to be dismissed with costs.

3.           The complainant in support of this case has filed the following documents:

2) Copy of RTI Application dated 10.02.2022

II.       The Opposite Party in support of his filed a following documents:

                   i)  Copy of the  filled up application Admission Form

                   ii) Copy of the Money Receipt  dated 23/08/2021

                   iii) Copy of the Email Sent page

.         iv) Copy of the  Transfer Certificate.

4.           In the face of pleadings and counter pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed.

(i)  Whether the petitioner was a consumer or not?

(ii) Whether the case is the maintainable before this Commission or not.

(iii) Is there any deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party?

(iv ) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

5. Issue No. (i) and (ii)

Issue No.A and B are interlinked and taken up simultaneously. The Opposite Party has relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e. the case of Maharshi Dayananda University Vrs. Surjit Kaur reported in 2010-11-SCC, 159 and P.T. KoshyVrs. L.N.Charitable Trust reported in 2012 (3) CPC-615 (SC) wherein it has been held that school being an educational institution, the matter cannot be entertained by the consumer forum under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. On the other hand, the complainant has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme of India in the case of P.Srinivasulu and another Vrs. P.J.Alexander and another decided on 09.09.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 2523-2524/2003 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. The decision relied on by the Opposite Party are of the year 2010 and 2012 respectively and the decision filed by the complainant is of the year 2015. So, the latest decision will prevail over the previous decision and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of the year 2015 will prevail over the previous decisions.

So, we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer and the plea taken by the Opposite Party is not sustainable and stands rejected. As the petitioner enjoys the status of a Consumer, this Commission has ample jurisdiction to sit over the matter and Issue (i) and (ii) are accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

6. Issue (iii)

Now comes the question whether there is deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party or not?

It is an admitted fact that the class room teaching was not there following the pandemic situation Covid-19 and there was online classes. The complainant alleges there was no online class and no link was given to his son to join in the online classes for which after waiting for a long period, he was compelled to withdraw his son from the institution. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has pleaded that the total syllabus, curriculum etc. they have sent to the student in his e-mail ID and the student was present in the classes for about 82 days out of the total 110 days i.e. from the date of joining in the institution till issue of transfer certificate. Simultaneously, the Opposite Party in para-9 of his written statement has pleaded that individual data of a specific student regarding his presence or absence in online classes was not exactly possible to maintain as many of the students use their nick names in place of recorded name and some students use to attend the online classes by switching of their videos to save date and some used to remain absent for poor network issue. Hence, providing exact number of classes attended or provided to the son of the complainant by the Opposite Party School is not possible but it was always open to the complainant to raise such issues when his son was intimated through e-mail about the examination guidelines and syllabus and examination schedule etc. on 17^th September 2021.

7.           During the course of argument, this Commission has directed the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party to provide specific evidence of the links given to the students during online classes. But, no such document was filed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has attempted to blow hot and cold at the same time. On the one hand, the Opposite Party states that the student had attempted 82 days of online classes out of the total 110 days. On the other hand in the subsequent paragraphs has pleaded that it is not possible to say how many classes the student has attended. Both the pleadings are self-contradictory and it appears that the Opposite Party is not clean in his own stand. There is nothing on record to show that the links were given to the student and in the absence of evidence to that effect, we are unable to accept the plea of the Opposite Party that they had given links to the students and he has attended the classes. In the absence of any concrete proof, it is not possible to accept the pleadings of the Opposite Party. Since the Opposite Party has failed to provide online classes to the students even after payment of tuition fees, it amounts to deficiency in service.

8. Issue (iv)

As a case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Party, he is liable for causing deficiency in service and is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allow on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till it is actually refunded to the complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation towards deficiency in service and harassment caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.