Present complaint is being filed through Ashwani Kumar father, guardian and next friend of Kartik Kumar Minor and has no adverse interest against him against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to refund the disputed amount of Rs.9750/- plus Rs.1950/- (Total Rs.11,700/-) with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages for illegal harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had taken admission in the school of opposite party and deposited Rs.9750/- vide receipt Sr.No.141 dated 9.4.2013 and Rs.1950/- vide no.56 dated 9.4.2013 in the Grade Ist. Hence he is consumer of the opposite party. The passage to the school from the main road was in worst condition and was attracting the accident. The agents of the opposite party approached his father Ashwani Kumar and allured him for admission of complainant in their school. His father had visited the school premises and complained to the opposite party that the passage linking to the school from the main road is in a worst condition which can attract an accident but they assured his father that they will repair the passage and will make it a safe one before starting of the school within 2/3 days. On the very first day of the starting of the school his father took him to the school and astonished to see the same worst condition of the passage of the school. He again complained to the opposite party and reminded him about his assurance. His father requested the opposite party for the cancellation of his admission to avoid accident and also demanded to return the deposited admission fee i.e. Rs.9750/- and Rs.1950/-. The opposite party assured his father to refund the whole amount deposited with the opposite party within few days but they did not refund the deposited amount to him till today. He alongwith his father had approached the opposite party many a times and requested him for the refund of abovesaid amount and all their request fell on the deaf ears of the opposite parties and the opposite party delayed the matter on one or the other pretext and finally on 7.4.2015 refused to refund the deposited amount. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the road to the school from the main road was/is in good condition and was not attracting the accidents. The opposite party has no any agent as alleged. The father of the complainant read the advertisement of the school of the opposite party in Newspaper and himself approached to the opposite party and got admitted the complainant in the school of the opposite party on his own initiation after depositing the requisite fee as per the norms of the school of the opposite party. It was incorrect that the opposite party assured the complainant’s father to refund any amount deposited with the opposite party within few days. It was denied that the complainant approached the opposite party many times or that ever requested him for the refund the alleged amount or that the request of the complainant fell on the deaf ears of the opposite party or that the opposite party delayed the matter on any pretext or that on 7.4.2015 refused to refund the alleged deposited amount. It was next submitted that actually the complainant attended the school w.e.f. 10.4.2013 to 20.4.2013 and thereafter stopped at his own to attend the school without giving any knowledge/information to the opposite party and now has filed this false and frivolous complaint. The complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the school premises. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Sh.Ashwani Kumar Guardian/father of the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Rajiv Rajan, Principal of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have thoroughly examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the present dispute pertains to the refund of Fees/Charges paid to the OP School by the complainant for his studies that he discontinued allegedly on account of the repairable & accident-prone condition of the passage leading to the school from the Main Road. Moreover, the complainant’s father Ashwani Kumar who suffers from 40% orthopedic disability in his Left Leg Ex.C4 faced difficulty/inconvenience on the stretch of link passage leading to the school from the main road, when he visited the school (for admission of his complainant Son) and was assured by the OP Principal that the same shall be repaired/set okay before the school gets reopened for studies. However, the link-passage was not repaired as assured and the complainant/ his father guardian decided to leave the School and requested for refund (of paid fees/charges) that were allegedly promised but not paid giving prompt to the present complaint. We find that a sum of Rs.9,750/- Ex.C3 was deposited by the complainant on 09.04.2013 vide Receipt # 141 on account of annual fee of Rs.7,000/-, Tuition fee (for a quarter) of Rs.1,600/-, Transportation fee of Rs.550/- and Lunch Charges Rs.600/- besides Rs.1950/- deposited vide Ex.C2 but with no defined/disclosed purpose/ reason etc. The OP Principal has contested and denied the ill-travelable state/condition of the link passage and has further alleged that its maintainability etc has been the responsibility of the Municipal Authorities and not of the school. The denial/ deposition as per the written reply and the lone affidavit Ex.OP1 in the absence of any cogently or even otherwise produced evidence shall be construed as ‘bald statement’ sans ‘evidentiary value’. Even, the Attendance Register was not produced to prove the alleged attendance /study of the complainant up to 20.04.2013. Although, the OP principal has claimed (in the written reply) full conversance with the present dispute he has failed to put forth any reason/compulsion (other than the alleged unworthiness of link-passage) behind the complainants’ decision of non-attendance & refund-request. The complainant shall thus be entitled to receive back but the refundable portion/ heads of the ‘deposits’ and that (in our considered opinion) shall include: annual fee of Rs.7,000/-, tuition fee of Rs.1,600/- & lunch charges of Rs.600/- aggregating to Rs.9,200/- minus 10% administrative cost/charges (Rs.920/-) with a final refund of Rs.8,280/-. Keeping in view the peculiar nature of the present ‘dispute’ coupled with ‘deficient’ gaping gaps like purpose of Ex.C2 deposit/ mention of the next-shifted school/along with some others; we are not inclined to award any cost and compensation under the Act.
7. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of with the directory to the Opposite party to refund (Fee deposit) and pay Rs.8,280/- to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the refund amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
November 23 2015. Member.
*MK*
