1.      This complaint has been filed by the Complainant alleging unfair trade practices by the Opponent school where he sought admission for his daughter and, thereafter cancelled the admission one and half months  on 29^th April, 2010 in advance prior to the commencement of academic year in June, 2010, and thereby to hold the Opponent School guilty for practicing Unfair Trade Practices for  withholding and failing to refund the school fees arbitrarily and illegally till date in view of the afore stated position  and further for directions to the Opponent school to refund the fees paid by the Complainant i.e. Rs. 56,250/- and for directions to compensate the Complainant for mental agony,  torture and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

Factual Matrix:

2.                It is the case of the Complainant that he sought admission on 8/3/2010 for his daughter named Aradhana Pillai to be enrolled in Std 6^th in the Opponent School more  particularly mentioned and situated at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Complaint, after payment of Rs. 45,250/- towards advance fee for the first quarter term and also Rs. 11,000/- towards SPA fee.  It is further the case of the Complainant that vide his letter dt. 29/4/2010 to the Principal of Opponent School he cancelled the admission of his daughter in the said Opponent school due to personal reasons one and half month prior to the commencement of the academic year. Hence requested for refund of all the advance fees paid for the academic year. Despite frantic personal follow up, so also reminders by e-mails, etc. till date, the Opponent school has not refunded the school fees paid by the Complainant. Aggrieved by this aforementioned illegal and arbitrary conduct by the Opponent School. Hence, the Complainant was constrained to file this present complaint against Opponent school for aforementioned reliefs.

3.                Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Forum, neither the Opponent school appeared nor filed their written statement. Postal acknowledgement of receipt of notice by the Opponent School is on record at Ex.4.  Hence, in view of the aforementioned position, the Forum on 19/3/2012 proceeded to hear the matter Ex-parte.    

4.      Issues which arise for consideration by this Forum are a follows:

ISSUES:

a)    Whether the Opponent school can be held for practising Unfair Trade Practice deficient for their services and for arbitrarily and illegally for withholding and failing to return the fee paid by the Complainant in the aforementioned circumstances? -- Ans. In affirmative.

b)         What order? – As per operative part of order.

5.                The Complainant in support of his above referred  contention has filed the following documents which are as follows:

1.    Cash receipt issued by Opponent School, Thane for the sum of Rs. 45,250/- dtd. 8/3/20100. (Ex- “5”)

2.    Cash receipt issued by  E-cube Academy Pvt. Ltd. For a sum of Rs. 11,000/- dtd. 8/3/2010. (Ex- “6”)

3.    Letter dt. 29/4/2010 addressed to Principal  of School in respect of cancellation of admission of Complainant’s daughter and requesting to fees paid. (Ex- “7”)

4.    E-mail print correspondence between the Complainant and the Principal of the Opponent School dtd. 1/12/2010, 9/6/2010, 21/6/2010, 15/6/2010, 10/6/2010 (Ex- “8”)

6.         There is no dispute that the Opponent school has received school fees to be tune of Rs. 56,250/- for the admission of the Complainant’s daughter record in the form of shool receipts at  Ex- “5” and “6”, so also the e-mail reply dtd. 9/6/2010  of the Opponent School  at Ex- “8”are self explanatory.

7.        On perusal of the above referred document at Ex-“7”   it is categorically clear that the Opponent school was giving intimation about cancellation on 29/4/2010 prior to the commencement  of academic year sometimes in June,2010 i.e. one and half month in advance which appears to be undisputed from the above mentioned e-mail on record of the Opponent School. It is pertinent to note that the daughter of the Complainant did not go to Opponent school for even one day. It is not/nor can be the case of the Opponent School that the seat reserved for the Complainant daughter remained vacant  for the said academic year 2010 It is further pertinent to note the contents of the E-mail reply dtd 9^th June 2010  of the Opponent School at Ex-“8” reproduced hereunder:- “The Caféteria,SPA and Transport fees will be refunded.  You can collect your ward’s school Essentials as we have already purchased them for her”. In the instant case in hand on what basis the Opponent School has made the afore statement is highly inconceivable as even assuming for the sake of argument the said essentials already purchased though can be given to the new enrolled pupil.  Further it is pertinent to note that after receiving notice from the NGO, the Opponent school has offered to refund sum of Rs. 36,250/-. We fail to understand on what basis the Opponent school has arrived at the figure of Rs. 36,250/- for refund.   There is nothing on record to indicate that the Opponent school has incurred losses due to the cancellation of admission of the Complainant’s daughter.  It is also pertinent to note that since the contentions of the Complainant are not rebutted by the Opponent school and remain to be uncontroverted. In fact it appears that the Opponent School has acted high handedly & considers itself above the Rule of Law. Bearing in mind the facts & circumstances of the instant case in hand, so also after appreciation of the above referred documentary evidence from Ex-“4 ” to “ 8”. Therefore we find substantial force & truth in the contentions raised by the Complainant. Hence we are of the well considered view that retaining admission fees and other fees etc in given facts & circumstances would amount to holding the amount illegally and arbitrary which is Unfair Trade Practice. Further in our view the conduct /attitude adopted by the Opponent School speaks volumes about it, it is highly deplorable that the Opponent  School being of such high stature is practicing such type of unfair trade practice. In our view Opponent School/s/Educational Institutions who are suppose to imparting moral values etc and are making the students ready to face challenges in near future to became responsible citizen in the given facts whether can be said to impart fair, proper morals & values is a big question.

 8.  It is settled law so also in various cases before the Hon’ble National Commission it is observed that retaining school fees like in the  facts and circumstances as in the instant case, so also charging advance Tuition Fees amounts to practicing unfair trade practices by Opponent School/s/Academic Institutions etc.                    

9. The view  taken by us is supported by the following judgement of Hon’ble State Commission Delhi cited in

2008 CTJ 300 (CP) (SCDRC)

Amity Business School and another

    v/s.

Puneet Jain

Appeal no. 247 of 2006

The relevant observation of the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in the above matter are reproduced hereunder:

“As regards the non refund of the fees and charging lump sum fees of the course we have an identical cases taken a view that more service provider much les the educational institute, university, coaching centers can be allowed to forfeit the fees in case it has neither provided any service nor has the student availed the service particularly when the student withdraws from the admission before the commencement of the session.  There cannot be worst and unscrupulous kind of practice to become unjustly rich without having provided any service and usurping consideration.  Therefore, we have also held that any such term agreed by the parties that fees once paid shall not be refunded is unconscionable and void-ab-initio for the simple reason that service provider has to provide service if it has received consideration thereof.

We have also deprecated the practice of taking the lump sum fees for the whole duration of the course say one year or two year or even in some case three years, as unfair trade practice because no service provider can charge consideration in advance for the service which it has yet to provide. By taking lump sum fee they bind the students for all time to come to get the coaching from the said institute even it he finds the coaching substandard at the cost of his career prospects.

By not refunding the fees of a student who has withdrawn from the Institute and then by filing it up by another candidate, they become doubly rich.  Thus such types of institutes have become commercial shops.  There cannot be worst and unfair trade practice and that too in the profession of education which is a pious profession.

10. In our view due to the aforesaid above discussion we feel that the Opponent School can be held for unfair trade practice in clear and categorical terms.  Further there is not an iota of doubt in our minds that the Complainant must have gone through immense mental agony and torture due to the conduct of the Opponent school for illegal and arbitrarily retaining the fees, so also that the complainant was so much so constrained that he had to knock the doors of the Forum for redressal of his grievances for which he needs to be compensated to achieve the ends of justice. Hence the following order:

                                      O R D E R

a)    The Opponent school is directed to refund the entire school fees to the tune of Rs. 56,250/- to the Complainant.

b)   The Opponent school is directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant towards interest, mental agony, torture etc.

c)    The Opponent school is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of litigation.

d)   The Opponent school is directed to comply with the aforementioned directions within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order. In default of compliance of the above interest @ 9% shall be applicable on the refund fees clause a) until realization.

e)    The Opponent school so also other educational institutions are directed not to practice such kind of unfair trade practices with respect to non refund of school fees in the given facts and circumstances as mentioned above.

f)     Copies of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.