Haryana

Kurukshetra

196/2018

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal Kanya Gurukul - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.196 of 2018

Date of Instt.:12.09.2018

Date of Decision: 02.03.2021

 

Ranjeet Singh son of Sh.Tirlok Singh resident of village Mundakhera VPO Jyotisar Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra Mobile No.70563-15773

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

The Principal, Kanya Gurukul, village Bachganwan Gamri, Post Office  Dabkheri, District Kurukshetra.                                                                                                                                        ….…Opposite party.

 

                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                     

 

Present:     Sh.Shekhar Thakur Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Mohit Goyal Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Ranjeet Singh against Principal  Kanya Gurukul  etc., the opposite party.

2.             In brief, the case of the complainant,s daughter  named Jaspreet Kaur got admission in the 9^th class for the session 2014-15 in the school of  OP and at that time school management charged Rs. 10,900/- as admission fee  (Admission charges +Annual charges+ monthly dues + Registration fees)  vide receipt No.19516 dated 26.3.2014 and  Rs.1500/- and the said security amount  was refundable after leaving the school by the student. It is further stated that  daughter of the complainant has studied till 12 class in the school of OP and  she has passed  out in the year 2018 from the school of OP. Father of the complainant went to the OP’s school in August 2018 for receiving the security amount of Rs.1500/-  and contacted the OP and showed her receipt of security amount  but the OPs denied to pay the same. Then the complainant went to the President of the Management, who agreed to pay Rs.300/- instead of Rs.1500/- which was not accepted by the complainant.  Thus, OPs have earned money in the name of security and are deficient in their services because the security amount of Rs.1500/- has been kept by the OP illegally. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services has claimed the compensation of Rs.75000/- on account of deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and litigation expenses and Rs.1500/- as security deposited by the complainant.

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that OP institution takes security like other schools at the time of admission. This security amount is kept first for meeting any unsettled dues left by a department student  and balance  is refunded to the student at the time of leaving the school. Under the sane context, Rs.1500/- was taken as security amount at the time of admission of Jaspreet Kaur daughter of the complainant.   The complainant alongwith his daughter visited the school on 9.8.2018 to get all the documents and clearance of her daughter.  The complainant was told that Rs.300/- is balance of the se3curity amount after settling pending dues of Jaspreet Kaur, will be refunded to them. He was also explained break up of Rs.1200/- which was adjusted against the security amount under two major heads- Her daughter’s class contribution towards donation to the school and farewell party.  The said amount was used to purchased new  PA  equipments and music system for junior and senior branch of the school.  Such amount is also  contributed by the student as her share in outgoing 12^th class donation to the school. A letter was written by the students of 12^th class   to  the OP  wherein they requested to deduct Rs.1000/- from the security balance of each student.  This letter was sight by the students of 12^th class including daughter of the complainant.  While denying all other allegations specifically, it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed his evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that daughter of the complainant was got admitted in the school of OP in  9^th class  for the session 2014-15 and he paid all the charges to the OP including Rs.1500/- as refundable security. His daughter  studied  till  the year 2018 and during August 2018, the complainant went to the OP and demanded the refundable security amount of Rs.1500/- but the OP refused to refund the same which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the law laid down in case  Davinder  Brar and others Vs. Ravleen Kaur  order dated 5.5.2010 in Appeal no.47/2009 of  the Hon’ble State Commission Himachal Pradesh.

8.             On the other hand, OP  while reiterating the contentions of the written statement has argued that amount of Rs.300/- was refundable to the complainant because rest of the amount was donated by the daughter of the complainant by signing a letter including all other students and  there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the OP has wrongly and illegally refused to refund the amount of Rs.1500/- to the complainant.  Without any cogent or legal reason withholding of amount of security of Rs.1500/- by the OP is not just and proper. School authorities cannot act in an arbitrary or casual manner in issuing   a normal and factually correct school leaving transfer certificate and cannot refuse to refund the security amount.  The school authorities, however, unnecessarily and unwarrantedly acted in an intransigent manner and the complainant was made to suffer harassment and mental agony. Such an act on the part of the OP-school amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP-School. Therefore, relying upon the law laid down in  Davinder Brar and other’s case (Supra)  the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

10.            As a result of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the sum of Rs.1500/- i.e. security amount, to the complainant. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses. The OP  is   further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open commission:

Dt.: 02.03.2021.                                          (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.