PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer case is as under –
The Complainant’s son Master Milind Khator was admitted in the Bright Start Pre-Primary School (Play Group-K.G.) of Opposite Parties as a Jr. K.G. student in March, 2006 for the academic year 2006-97. Complainant’s son successfully completed his academic year 2006-07 and was promoted to Sr. K.G. for the academic year 2007-08.
2)It is the case of the Complainant that he was given to understand that the school has academic facility till 12th Standard, as it could be seen from the brochure furnished to him and believing the facts and representations as contained in the said brochure an information about the same given by the Opposite Party, the Complainant had got his son admitted in the Opposite Party’s school.
3) It is submitted that during pursuance of the Senior K.G. classes he was informed by Opposite Party that his son was not progressing much and therefore, he was called to the school alongwith his wife. During that period, Complainant’s wife was pregnant and was advised rest. Therefore, Complainant alone went to the school. In the meeting he was asked whether he had taken a decision to shift his son to some other school and he was also given a suggestion whether his son could be retained in the same class, since he was told that progress of his son was not satisfactory. The Complainant told Opposite Party that he had no objection whatsoever repeating the child in the same standard in case his progress was not found upto the mark. It is say of the Complainant, after the said meeting, he himself took extra efforts towards his son’s progress. There was tremendous progress of his son Mast. Milind in the school and same could be verified from his class teacher’s remarks and complements by way of “Stars” etc.
4) It is submitted that to the utter shock to the Complainant, without any information and acting in totally illegal, arbitrary, dishonest and malicious manner the Opposite Party school under Principal’s signature issued a School Leaving Certificate and did not promote his son even after successful completion to the Bright Start Fellowship School (ICSE) as was done in case of other students. The action of the Opposite Party of non-promoting his son Mast. Milind not only caused severe mental pain and mental agony to the Complainant, Complainant’s wife and his Parents but also had also very bad adverse effect in the mind of young and tender son who was deprived of the company of his classmates with whom he shared very good bond for 2 years. The Complainant found that Opposite Party had also indulged in the similar fashion and acted highhandedly in illegal manner which was reported in the most leading Newspaper named “Mumbai Mirror.”
5) Under these circumstances the Complainant through his advocate sent notice to the Opposite Party and called upon to clarify why his son was illegally removed from the school. No reply was sent to the said notice by the Opposite Party. The Complainant had sent copy of the said notice to the Hon’ble Minister for Education, Government of Maharashtra for information. As there was no response to the first notice dtd.10/02/08, the Complainant sent second notice dtd.09/06/08 for refund of security deposit, the Complainant had received it. The Complainant has filed this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental agony and emotional suffering etc. and Rs.50,000/- as expenses incurred for running around to find out other school for admission to his son. In all the Complainant has claimed Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation. He has prayed for interest on aforesaid amount @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of entire amount and for any other just relief.
6) Alongwith complaint, Complainant has produced copies of documents as per the list of document and his own affidavit.
7) Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that complaint is misconceived and misleading and the Complainant has suppressed material facts and documents from this Forum and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. The Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has relied upon false and fabricated documents. The allegations made in the complaint are baseless, frivolous and devoid of merits.
8) It is the case of the Opposite Party that Opposite Party is conducting precisely a Pre-Primary School which is enrolling students only from Play Group to Sr. K.G. Prop. Dr. Pragna H. Mehta is a sole proprietor of Bright Start School. The Opposite Party has started Bright Start Pre-Primary School (Play Group-K.G.) in order to develop and train kids to adopt to the modern education system. It is admitted that the son of Complainant Mast. Milind was the student of Opposite Party School and studied upto Sr. K.G. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that a trust by name of Muliben Dulabhdas Trust is running Bright Start Fellowship School appointed her as a consultant and granted Opposite Party liberty to recommend the students of Bright Stat School for being consider for admission in the first standard in the said school run by the said trust. Barring recommending the admission in the said school the Opposite Party has no role to play in the matter of the admission and the said trust being a separate legal entity is running the said school independently taking its own decision in the matter of admission. Since the Opposite Party was authorized by the said trust, the prospectus of the Opposite Party’s school also does reflect the details pertaining to the Bright Start Fellowship School.
9) The Opposite Party has also denied allegations made in the complaint. The Opposite Party has specifically denied allegations that Opposite Party illegally arbitrarily and with dishonest intention issued School Leaving Certificate of Mast.Milind as alleged in the complaint. According to the Opposite Party, School Leaving Certificate was rightly issued as per practice and procedure of Opposite Party School. The Bright Start Fellowship School is totally different school run by the Trust and Opposite Party has no right to admit student of school in the first standard of Bright Start Fellowship School. The Opposite Party has denied allegations as regards mental harassment and contended that the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation a claimed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
10) The Complainant has filed written argument and the Opposite Party has also filed written argument. Heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Mamta Omale for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Ashwini Gadgil with Adv. Prabhavalkar for Opposite Party.
11) Following points arises of our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether Complainant is entitled for compensation from Opposite Party as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- It is admitted fact that Complainant’s son Mast. Milind was admitted in the Opposite Party’s Bright Start Pre-Primary School as a Jr. K.G. student in the month of March, 06 for the academic year 2006-07. Even according to the Complainant, his son successfully completed academic year 2006-07 and his son was promoted. It is not dispute that while the Complainant’s son was studying in Sr. K.G., Opposite Party had called Complainants for discussion. When Complainant went to Opposite Party’s school during the course of discussion it was disclosed to the Complainant that progress of his son was not satisfactory. Suggestion was given to the Complainant that he could retain his son in the same class. It appears that as per suggestion the Complainant agreed to retain his son in the same class instead of shifting to some other school. According to the Complainant, he took extra efforts to his son’s progress. It is undisputed fact that there was progress of Mast. Milind, son of the Complainant and it reflected in the teacher’s remark. After completing Sr. K.G., the Opposite Party issued School Leaving Certificate.
The Complainant in this complaint had not alleged anything about the quality of education imparted in Opposite Party School to his son Milind. The Complainant has not expressed any grievance about the standard of education but has stated that there was tremendous progress of his son in Opposite Party School.
It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that Opposite Party in their prospectus and also in the meeting orally represented that after completion of Pre-Primary education, admission will be given to his son in the first standard of Bright Start Fellowship School. After completing Sr. K.G. inspite of giving admission to his son Milind in first standard of Bright Start Fellowship School, Opposite Party issued School Leaving Certificate. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Ld.Advocate has referred to prospectus issued by the Opposite Party. Prospectus is of Pre-Primary School and also in receipt of Bright Start Fellow School. However, in the prospectus nowhere representation is made to the parents that after completion of Pre-Primary School in Bright Start School student would be admitted in the first standard or Bright Start Fellowship School. Absolutely there is no documentary evidence on record to support contention raised on behalf of Complainant that representation or assurance was given by the Opposite Party to admit his son in first standard of Bright Start Fellowship School. There is absolutely no evidence to prove to that oral representation or assurance given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant to that effect.
On the contrary Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that Bright Start Pre-School and Bright Start Fellowship School are separate entities. Dr. Pragna H. Mehta is a sole Proprietor of Bright Start Pre-Primary School. Bright Start Fellowship School is run by a trust by name Muliben Dulabhdas Trust. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the Complainant. It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that the Bright Start Fellowship School has appointed Opposite Party as a consultant and granted liberty to recommend the student of Bright Start School for being considered for admission in the first standard of said school. According to the Opposite Party, at the most Opposite Party can recommend student of Bright Pre-School for admission in Bright Start Fellowship School but she as no right to admit her student in the aforesaid school. There is no evidence to prove that at any time the Opposite Party had made any representation or given any assurance to give admission to son of the Complainant in Bright Start Fellowship School. The Complainant has made aforesaid allegations against the Opposite Party without any basis.
It appears from the evidence on record that Bright Start Pre-School is run by Opposite Party Dr. Pragna H. Mehta and she is a sole Proprietor of the said school. Bright Start Fellowship School is run by Trust Muliben Dulabhdas. As discussed above, we do not find substance in the allegations made by the Complainant that Opposite Party made representation to the Complainant that admission will be given to his son in Bright Start Fellowship School run by the Trust. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, we hold that complaint is misconceived and Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. In the result we answer point no.1 in the negative.
Point No.2 :- As discussed above the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and therefore, the Complainant is not entitle to any compensation from the Opposite Party. Hence, we answer point no.2 in the negative.
For the reasons discussed above, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.167/2008 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
