SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of  Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the  opposite party to pay  the compensation for mental agony and other expenses incurred  for the  complainant and  for a total amount of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service  on his part.

 The case of the complainant in brief:

       The complainant’s son Satvik was admitted in the 1^st standard of OP’s school on 4/6/2020 as admission No.7324.  On the same day the complainant paid Rs.40530/- as tuition fees and  security fees through SBI account.  At the time of admission due to corona pandemic only online classes were conducted by OP.  Thereafter the complainant’s son got admission  in Kendriya Vidyalaya, he has applied  for T.C on 14/9/2020.  When he applied for T.C the OP stated that he was directed to pay the same for his  entitlement of T.C on 15/9/2020 the complainant paid  the amount of Rs.10,409/- through SBI branch.  The OP stated the 2^nd quarter fee for July,August and September was paid then only he got the T.C.Then the complainant paid the 2^nd quarter fee  of Rs.10,409/- through SBI branch. On 29/9/2020 the complainant received Rs.18145/- from OP as per cheque No.416919.  But the OP stated that within 7 days he got the T.C from OP’s institution.  But after 21 days delay only on 5/10/2020 complainant got the T.C. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint.

      After  filing the  complaint  notice issued  to OP.  OP  entered appearance before the commission and filed his written version.  He contended that Army School is a public school affiliated to CBSE and  run as per AWES and its regulations.  The complainant’s son Satvik was admitted in 1^st standard and the complainant paid 1^st quarter fees April,May & June as per school rules.  The student has attended the classes on online and utilized the service of the school.  The complainant had applied for TC on 14/9/2020 claiming that he got admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya.  When applied for TC the fees for the 2^nd quarter July,August & September was due and pay the amount  Rs.10,409/- and to get the T.C.  Then the complainant paid the amount through SBI branch and the OP signed the same on 5/10/2020.  On 29/9/2020 the complainant collected the cheque from OP for Rs.18,145/-.  This amount includes security amount and  other refundable amount also.  The allegation of the  complainant that he was not permitted to enter the school.  Due to the Epidemic of corona virus the regular class of all school was stopped  as per the direction of the government.  Moreover, the school area is in the containment zone.  The online classes were conducted in which the student participated.  The OP has only complied the direction of the government and it was only to prevent the spreading of the virus.  He is liable to pay the fees upto the date of issue of transfer certificate.  The TC and the cheque for refund of the amount was given within  reasonable time that too complying the restrictions in the corona period.  There is no deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  So the complaint may be dismissed.

      On the  basis of the rival contentions  by  the pleadings the following issues   were framed for  consideration

1.  Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is  entitled for  any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

       The   evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and   Exts.A1 &A2 series marked .  From the side of  OP no oral evidence, Ext.B1 was marked.

Issue No.1:

     The  complainant adduced evidence  before the commission by submitting his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version. He  was  cross examined  as PW1  by OP. He relied  up on  Exts.A1&A2 series to substantiate his case.  In the evidence of PW1 he stated that  “A\ymbambn hm§nb fees Xncn¨pIn«m³ th­nbpw , T.C bv¡v September   applysNbvXn«v October  BWv e`n¨Xv.  B kab¯v Fsâ `mcy   pregnant  Bbncp¶p. C¡mcy§Ä¡mWv ]cmXn sImSp¯Xv.  But as per  Ext.B1 document the complainant applied for the TC and stated that “may I request you  to refund  my security deposit Rs.16000/- plus all eligible amount.  On 29/9/2020 the complainant received Rs.18145/- as per cheque.  Security amount 16,000/-  cp]bmWv.  Annunal fee bpsS fees Ign¨pÅ _m¡n amount  BWv In«nbXv.  Rs.2145/- cq]   security deposit IqSmsX X¶n«p­v. thsd kv¡pfn  admission In«nbXpsIm­mWv Ip«nsb amänbXv.  tI{µob hnZymeb¯nepw online class  Bbncp¶p. TC In«m³ sshInbXpsIm­v Ip«nbpsS admission  \n¶p t]mbn«nÃ. Corona Imew BbXpsIm­v school \v   document Xcm³ _p²nap«p­mbncp¶p.  7 Znhkw sIm­v T.C XcWw F¶Xn\v document  Rm³ lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ. Moreover  in re-examination PW1 stated that 7 Znhkw sIm­v T.C Xcmsa¶v  office staff BWv ]dªXv. But the complainant not produce the witness before the commission to prove the truth of the statement.  So the OP school is Government approved CBSC school and  OP collected  government approved fee.  Army school does  not have its own bylaw.  The student is liable to pay  tuition fee till he is in the school roll. The complainant’s son was in the roll upto 5/10/2020.  The 1^st quarter  fee is for April to June and 2^nd quarter fee from July to September .  The complainant had  suffered mental agony due to hospitalization of his wife.  But there was no documents or witness to prove the same.  Moreover the OP’s school  is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education for imparting education .  The judgment of National Commission and Hon’ble  Supreme Court stated that Manu Solanki & Others vs. Vinayaka Mission University 1(2010)CPJ 210.  So the complaint cannot be considered as a consumer of OP school . So there is no deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  So the issue No.1 found in favour of OP and answered accordingly.

Issue  No.2&3: 

     As discussed above due to the aforesaid  deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP is not proved by the complainant.  So the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case.  Thus issue No 2&3 are also  accordingly answered.

    Hence the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not proved deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice against the OP.  So the compensation and cost not allowed.

   In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts:

A1 series-Chalan receipt(2 in Nos)

A2 series- Bank details

B1- request

PW1-Siju.C.P - complainant

Sd/                                                                Sd/                                                 Sd/

PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                         

                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR