Date of filing : 24-10-2010
Date of order : 30-01-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.243/2010
Dated this, the 30th day of January 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
A. Riyas, S/o. K.Aboobacker, } Complainant
Kallai House, Karuvacherry,
Nileshwaram,
Hosdurg Taluk.
(Adv.M.Purushothaman, Hosdurg)
Christ C.M.I. Public School, } Opposite party
Balla.Po. Kanhangad. 671531
(Adv.P.Narayanan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT. K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not providing attenders in opposite party’s school to assist the LKG students. The facts of the case is that complainant’s son has got admission on opposite party’s institution. During the initial days itself the complainant noticed his child aged 3 ½ years was compelled to carry a school bag weighing 5Kg approximately to the class room as there was no attenders to help the child. The complainant was shocked to see the children including his son were made to stand in the Varandha taking their lunch. There were no facilities to sit, at least on the floor while taking lunch. This deficiency of service resulted in harassment, mental agony and undue stress to the complainant. As opposite party was not ready to heed the request of the complainant, his son discontinued his studies from the institution of the opposite party. Eventhough complainant demanded refund of fees it was not given so far. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite party their school is a well reputed education institution in Kasaragod district under the Management of CMI congregation. They are running more than 400 educational institutions all over India. The school authority has not given any promise to students or induce them to join in the school. The opposite party has not given any promises to the complainant herein. Opposite party never received donation. The opposite party has put up a paraphet covered with tiles for the LKG students to take their lunch and it is produced for produced for keeping the premises clean and hygienic. If the childrens were allowed to sit in the floor it will affect their health. Opposite party has directed teachers and staff to assist the LKG students for taking their lunch. No parents have filed any complaint against the system. The complainant is employed in UAE he never came to the school for meeting of opposite party or complaining about the system. The son of the complainant came to the school only for 13 days. So the opposite party need to contact the complainant for informing the continuous absence of the student. As per rules the continuous absence of the student leads to the termination from class and tuition fee will be forefieted. Thereafter nobody contacted opposite party and on 8-10-10 complainant came to the school for taking the note books kept in the class room and opposite party has returned it. Complainant demanded the entire fees paid at the time of admission and opposite party could not repay the same. On 8-10-2010 complainant has threatened that he would teach a lesson and he would defame the institution. After sending the lawyer notice to opposite party, the complainant has published the copy of notice in public in order to defame the institution. This complaint is filed to harass the opposite party and no damages is sustained to the complaint.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 to A5 marked. Complainant is cross-examined by the counsel of opposite party. Opposite party examined by the counsel of complainant. Opposite party examined as DW1. Exts B1 & B2 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused. The learned counsel appeared for opposite parties filed a detailed notes of Argument in support of his case.
4. The points which are to be answered in this case are:
1. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act?
3. Whether there is deficiency o9f service on the part of opposite parties?
4. If so what is the relief?
5. For convenience points 1, 2 and 3 can be discussed together. Here the complainant’s son Nihal Roshan aged 3 ½ years got admission in opposite party’s school. During the initial days itself complainant was fed up with the services provided in opposite party’s school. LKG students were compelled to carry their heavy school bags to the 1st floor. The children including his son were made to stand in the Varandha taking their lunch. There were no facilities to sit, atleast on the floor while taking lunch. Complainant was shocked by seeking this and requested opposite party to make some arrangements to assist the children. But was not needed by the opposite party. Complainant’s son discontinued his studies due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and demanded refund of fees. But was not given so far. This resulted in filing this complaint.
6. The learned counsel appeared for the opposite parties filed a detailed Argument notes including case laws. But the circumstances in those case laws are not tallying with the circumstances of this case.
7. Issues 1, 2 & 3
Giving admission to the students in a school/college/institution/university by receiving fees and in such cases if there is any dispute with regard to the validity of such admission or illegality or irregularity committed by such institution in giving admission such dispute would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act. This is on the basis of contract between the parties i.e. students and institution and is based on the consideration (fees) for rendering education such students (on the basis of Sec 2(1)d(ii) read with Section 2(1)(o) would be hirer of serviced for consideration and hence would be a consumer. Further deficiency as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) would be apparent as this would be a fault/short coming in nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law. This is cited in Manish Chaudhary V Orbit Educational and Research foundation & Anr III (2007) CPJ 42 (NC).
8. Here complainant’s son got admission in opposite party’s institution after complying all formalities and paying fees. Dissatisfied by the services rendered by opposite party’s institution complainant sent a lawyer notice. As opposite party was not ready to provide services as requested by the complainant, this complaint filed. In Brilliant Classes V B.M.Gupta we can understand what is deficiency of service as an educational institution is concerned. A difficulty in persuing the course for the student. Here, a small child aged 3.5 years old constrained to carry a school bag weighing 5Kg approximately without the help of any attenders to the class room situated on the first floor is of course a deficiency of service. Complainant was shocked to see childrens including his son were made to stand in the Varandha taking their lunch. They are not allowed to sit, atleast on the floor while taking lunch. Complainant requested to aid his son but was not heeded by the opposite party. Complainant experienced that there are no attenders in the school to assist the personal necessities of LKG students. This deficiency of service resulted in harassment, mental agony and undue stress for the complainant. He send a lawyer notice Ext. A1 to the opposite party on 1-10-2010. Even after getting the lawyer notice also opposite party was not ready to correct their mistakes but justified their mistakes. That approach of opposite party led to this complaint. In Jaikumar Mittal V. Brilliant tutorials IV (2005) CPOJ 156 (NC) it is held that “Retaining fees without rendering any service amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This is will defined in Manish Chaudari V Orbit Educational and Research Foundation & ANR III (2007) CPJ 42 (NC). The Morality followed by an educational Institution is well explained in CGS College of Modern Technology V. Mrs. Kusuma Arorait is held that after all they are not commercial establishments and they cannot be allowed to retain the fees of students as such. In another case also the court made to remember private educational institutions that” Educational Institutions are not commercial institutions and as such they do not thrive upon fees profiteering from fees collected as such retention of fees amounts to deficiency of service.
9. In the light of above mentioned discussions we are of the view that the Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint of course complainant is a consumer and there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
10. What is the Relief
According to the complainant he paid `13,383/- at the time of admission. Out of which `6500/- is donation for which no receipt is issued. `1500/- is the admission fee for which Ext.A4 receipt is produced. Complainant paid `681/- for uniform and badge. Ext.A3 receipt is produced as an evidence. Full term fee `4700/- is paid on the same date for which Ext.A5 receipt is produced. Fees paid in different heads are otaled with blue ink on the back side of Ext.A4. Eventhough there is no documentary evidence for donation this Forum believes that complainant approached the Forum with clean hands. This Forum is observing the commercial attitude of all private educational institutions. It was against educational ethics. Our ancient culture of education is very sacred and is given by sages. They were considered as the emobodiment of knowledge. Now a days private education sector is aiming only profiteering forgetting ethics and ‘values’. So such institutions cannot serve the purpose. Education is an art of man making “the process is not complete” now a days coming out of such institutions aiming only money making.
Here, after giving a huge amount the complainant undergone mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get refund of `10,400/-. Deducting Admission fee, uniform charges and Ist instalment with a compensation of `5,000/- and cost of `3000/- within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which interest at the rate of 9% shall be charged on `10,400/- from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Copy of lawyer notice.
A2. Reply notice.
A3 to A5 receipts.
B1. Photocopy of Register of Attendance and Fees.
B2. 25-10-2010 Lawyer notice.
PW1. Riyas. A
DW1. Fr. George Punchayil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
