Date of filing   :  01-07-2011 

                                                                           Date of order   : 13 -09-2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.152/2011

                         Dated this, the   13^th     day of   September    2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT. K.G.BEENA                                        : MEMBER

Bhuvanendran.V,                                           } Complainant

F/o. Navaneethkrishna.B,

Podora Veedu, Klayikkode.Po,

Cheruvathur, Kasaragod.

(In Person)

Principal,                                                        } Opposite party

Chinmaya Vidyalaya,

Po.Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.

(Adv.Kodoth Unnikrishnan, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIHDIQ, PRESIDENT

            Shorn of unnecessaries the case of complainant is that the opposite party did not refund the admission fee he paid for his ward who sought admission to the 1^st standard of opposite party school.  According to the complainant his son was a student in LKG & UKG classes in opposite party school. But he did not remit admission fee for the 1^st standard since he was trying to get admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya. But  the school authorities insisted to pay the admission fee on or before 31-03-2011. Hence he remitted the admission fee and other fees  on 29-03-2011 on compulsion.   But on 3-4-2011 itself  his son got admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya.  Hence he requested to refund the fees he  paid.  But it was in vain.  Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of `25,000/-.

2.         According to opposite party the son of the complainant is admitted in 1^st standard on 29-03-2011 as the complainant applied and  agreed all the norms at the time of admission and also signed the declaration. In the prospectus it is made clear that the fees once paid will not be refunded in any event.  So the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of fees paid.  The complainant by his own will and discretion opted to admit his child in the opposite party school.  Further if a student left the school, the opposite party school is not in a position to admit another student in that place since the admission is closed by that time.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and Exts A1 to A3 marked on his side.  He faced cross-examination by the learned counsel for opposite party Sri.Kodoth Unnikrishnan.  On the side of opposite party,  Exts. B1 & B2 marked.  Both sides heard. Documents perused.

4.         The specific case of the complainant is that he remitted 10930/- by way of receipt  No.31952 dt. 29-03-2011 for admitting his son Navaneeth Krishnan.B is 1^st standard.  But as he got admission in  Kendriya Vidyalaya on 3-4-2011 itself he admitted his son in Kendriya Vidyalaya and  requested to refund the fee paid as his son has  not availed any service from opposite party.  Ext.A1 is the receipt dated 29-03-2011 evidencing the payment of `10930/-.  Ext.A2 is the receipt dated 29-03-2011 for `100/- issued   in the name of Navaneeth Krishnan towards the registration fee for 1^st standard.  Ext.A3 is the copy of application submitted by the complainant  to  the opposite party requesting for the refund of fees.

5.         As against this, to substantiate their  contention, learned counsel for opposite party produced the application for admission submitted by the complainant and the prospectus of the school. They are marked as Exts B1 & B2 respectively.  Sri. Kodoth Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for opposite party  vehemently argued that since the application has once signed by the complainant all the terms and conditions mentioned in the application is binding on him and the said application for admission contains a condition which specifically states that the fees once paid will not be refunded in any event  The learned counsel for opposite party also submitted that such a clause is available in Ext.B2 prospectus also.  Therefore according to him complainant is not entitled for any relief.

6.         But the contention of the opposite party is not sustainable.

7.         First of all the rules of an educational institution published in the ‘ Prospectus’ are made unilaterally by it keeping it’s own interest before it. They cannot bind  the students and their guardians.

8.         Secondly,  Ext.A1 fee receipt for `10930/- shows that a sum of `7000/- is  collected towards the development fee.  If a student who is not  at all attended the classes  then what is his interest in the development of that school?  The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in the case of Bal Bhavan Public School V Shiv Shankar Gupta reported in 2007 CTJ 61 (CP) (SCDRC) has held

            “Various receipts produced by the respondent show that the appellant had not only been charging the tuition fees and maintenance fee  but also development fund  and  examination fees besides tuition fee etc.  If such is the consideration being received by the appellant-school some of which are not directly related to the imparting of education like maintenance fund or development charges, such a practice is uncalled for as main service being provided by the school is imparting education against consideration.

            No Institution or Society can be allowed to start the educational institute or school unless it has all the wherewithal or paraphernalia. It can only charge consideration for imparting education and not for maintenance or building fund or any other kind of fund or charge that is not directly related to the service of imparting education. To charge such funds is unfair, unethical and unscrupulous practice as though these charges they want to build up the school or Institute whereas it is the sole responsibility of the Institution or Society to set up the full fledged Institute or School before starting it.  Any fault or imperfection or inadequacy in this regard itself amounts to deficiency in service which is defined by Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 means as under:

                        “ deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the

                        Quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be

                      maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been

                      undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or

                      otherwise in relation to any service”

9.         The conduct of the opposite party school in this case is highly reprehensible since son of the complainant did not avail a single day service from opposite party.  Therefore it  definitely amounts to unscrupulous exploitation of consumers.  Hence they are liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant.

            In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund `10,780/-out of `10,930/- i.e. excluding the admission fee `150/- with a cost of `2,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which `10,780/- will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. 29-3-2011 fee receipt issued by OP to Navaneeth Krishna for an amount of 10930/-

A2. 29-03-2011 fee for Ist standard in favour of Navaneeth Krishnan for an amount of 100/-

A3. 3-6-12 letter issued by complainant to OP

B1. Admission No.3943 Application for Admission of Navaneeth Krishna.B.

B2. Prosepectus 2011-2012

PW1. Bhuvanendran.V.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/